Kargman v. Just The Story - Copyright Complaint PDF

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
1
2
3
4
5
Adam Kargman, Esq., SBN 212109

16060 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 110 #228
Encino, California 91436
Telephone: (818) 809-5226
Email: akargman@yahoo.com
In Pro Se
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ADAM KARGMAN,
an individual;
12
Plaintiff,
Case No. ___________________

COMPLAINT FOR:
1)
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT;
2)
BREACH OF CONTRACT;
3)
FALSE DESIGNATION OF
ORIGIN; and
4)
AN ACCOUNTING.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
vs.
JUST THE STORY LLC,
a California limited liability
company; and
CARTER MASON,
an individual,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Adam Kargman (Plaintiff), complaining of the above-named
Defendants, alleges as follows, which allegations are based upon information and
belief insofar as they pertain to the Defendants identities and conduct:

I.
4
5
6
7
1.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.
This is a case of brazen and willful copyright infringement, egregious
failure to pay royalties, and unfair competition.

2.
Plaintiff is an award-winning independent filmmaker. He is the author
and copyright owner of the acclaimed short film Loud and Deep (the Film), a
15-minute slapstick comedy.
10
3.
Defendants are (a) Just the Story LLC (JTS), a subscription-based,
11
Internet television network that operates the website www.jts.tv (the Website), and
12
(b) its CEO, Managing Member, and Co-Founder, Carter Mason (Mason).
13
4.
In January 2014, Plaintiff made the fateful decision to enter into a Digital
14
Distribution Agreement (the Agreement) with JTS, in which he agreed to license
15
the Film to JTS in exchange for royalty payments that were to be paid quarterly.
16
17
18
5.
In November 2015, after JTS had utterly failed to pay Plaintiff royalties
for five consecutive quarters, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement.

6.
Nonetheless, long after the Agreement and any license JTS had to
19
distribute the Film terminated, Defendants JTS and Mason (collectively,
20
Defendants) brazenly continued to distribute it. Defendants have ignored
21
Plaintiffs repeated cease and desist demands, threatened him, and lied to him, falsely
22
claiming that they removed Loud and Deep from JTS when they had not. To do this
23
day, Defendants are continuing to illegally distribute the Film and profit from it,
24
infringing Plaintiffs exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act (the
25
Copyright Act). To date, Defendants have also failed to pay Plaintiff his accrued
26
royalties.
27
28
7.
Through their lies, deceit, false promises, willful infringement, failure to
comply with multiple cease-and-desist demands, failure to communicate, threats, and

1
COMPLAINT
other misconduct, Defendants have virtually invited this lawsuit.
II.
THE PARTIES.
8.
Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
9.
Defendant Just the Story LLC (JTS) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of California with its principal place
of business in Redondo Beach, California. JTS bills itself as a premium digital
television network that is committed to bringing . . . top quality independent shows
and films. For a subscription fee of $3.99 per month or $39.99 per year, users
gain[ ] access to all shows on JTS.TV across multiple viewing platforms, including
10
web, tablet and mobile. According to its website, JTS has a clear and open financial
11
model where half of all subscription revenue received goes directly to the
12
creators/owners, in furtherance of the vision of the network to provide creators with
13
a fair and sustainable partnership.
14
10.
Defendant Carter Mason (Mason) is a resident of Los Angeles County,
15
California. He is the CEO, Managing Member, and Co-Founder of JTS. According
16
to the Website, Mason has worked in the entertainment industry for almost a decade
17
as an actor, writer, and producer. Mason also operates The Carter Mason Group
18
(www.cartermasongroup.com), based in Redondo Beach, California, through which
19
he purports to provide entertainment clients with legal consulting, legal
20
workshop[s], and any and all . . . legal and business consulting needs even
21
though Mason is not a licensed California attorney.
22
23
11.
for JTS and in the course and scope of said agency of employment.
III.
24
25
At all times relevant hereto, Mason was acting as an agent or employee
12.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
26
pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1331 and 1338(a) and (b) because
27
this action arises under the Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code,
28
sections 101 et seq., and the Lanham Act, Title 15, United States Code,
2
COMPLAINT
sections 1121 et seq. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to
Title 28, United States Code, section 1367(a), over Plaintiffs claims that arise under
the laws of the State of California.

13.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over JTS pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, in
that JTS resides and transacts business in the State of California.

14.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mason pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10,
in that Mason resides and transacts business in the State of California.

15.
10
Venue for this matter properly lies within the Central District of
11
California pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, section 1391(b)(2), in that (a) JTS
12
resides in this judicial district; (b) Mason resides in this judicial district; (c) all
13
defendants are residents of this state; and (d) a substantial part of the events and
14
omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.

IV.
15
16
A.
The Film.
16.
17
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS.
Plaintiff is the author and sole copyright owner of the Film. Upon
18
completing the Film in 2013, Plaintiff registered it with the United States Copyright
19
Office (Registration No. PAu-3-667-450), which registration became effective on
20
March 7, 2013.
21
17.
Around the time that Plaintiff completed the Film, Plaintiff also created
22
the Loud and Deep Poster (the Poster) for purposes of promoting and marketing the
23
Film. The Poster is shown below:
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
B.
The Digital Distribution Agreement.

18.
On January 14, 2014, Mason contacted Plaintiff and told him, Were
interested in having your hilarious short film, Loud and Deep, on JTS.TV.
19.
On January 26, 2014, Plaintiff entered into the Agreement with JTS. The
Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a)
Plaintiff granted JTS, during the contractual term (discussed
13
below), a nonexclusive license to distribute, reproduce, and display the Film by way
14
of online or other electronic forms of distribution.
15
(b)
JTS promised to pay a quarterly royalty (the Royalty) to
16
Plaintiff. The Royalty earned for each calendar quarter, along with a report (the
17
Quarterly Report) detailing the net receipts for that quarter and the computation of
18
the Royalty, were due [w]ithin 30 days of the end of each Calendar Quarter.
19
(c)
The Royalty was to be calculated as follows: 50% of net revenue
20
after transaction fees and affiliate payments received by JTS.TV goes into a content
21
creators pool where the money is distributed monthly to producers based on the
22
percentage of viewing by JTS.TV subscribers. For example, if there is $10,000 in the
23
content creators pool, and a producers share is 10%, that producer would receive
24
$1,000 as their monthly royalty disbursement.
25
26
27
(d)
JTS promised that there will be a guaranteed payment each
quarter beginning with the quarter the [Film] is released. (Emphasis added.)
(e)
JTS promised to act in good faith at all times toward [Plaintiff]
28
4
COMPLAINT
and to openly report the breakdown of revenue.

(f)
The initial term of the Agreement was 12 months. After the
expiration of the initial term, the Agreement was to continue indefinitely on the same
terms and conditions, unless and until either party terminated the Agreement by giving
at least 30 days notice.

20.
6
7
materials to Defendants.
21.
8
9
On February 1, 2014, Plaintiff delivered the Film, the Poster, and other
Defendants released the Film on the Website in February 2014, within 21
days of delivery of the Film.

22.
10
In or about May or June 2014, Plaintiff received a handwritten check
11
from JTS for the Royalty for the first quarter of 2014. The check amount was
12
two dollars. No Quarterly Report was provided to Plaintiff; thus, he had no way of
13
verifying whether he was being paid what he was owed.

23.
14
15
To date, Plaintiff has received no further Royalties from JTS. Plaintiff
has never been furnished with a Quarterly Report for any calendar quarter.
24.
16
The initial term of the Agreement ended no later than February 22, 2015.
17
The Agreement continued in effect because, at that time, neither party gave notice of
18
termination.
19
C.
Plaintiff Terminates the Agreement.

25.
20
On November 1, 2015, after JTS had (a) failed to pay Plaintiff any
21
Royalties for five consecutive calendar quarters, and (b) failed to issue a single
22
Quarterly Report, Plaintiff served notice of termination of the Agreement.

26.
23
Mason responded that same day, acknowledging that he received the
24
notice and Im disappointed to see the film go! He further stated: [W]e owe you
25
some royalties. Weve had issues with the person who handled payments, and Im
26
trying to take over that responsibility. Well be getting payments out again by the end
27
of the year.
28
///
5
COMPLAINT
D.
Plaintiffs January 2016 Cease-and-Desist Demand.

27.
On January 26, 2016, after discovering that JTS was still distributing,
reproducing, and displaying the Film, Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist demand to
Defendants (the January 2016 Cease-and-Desist Demand), demanding that they
IMMEDIATELY (1) remove [the Film] from [the] site, including all associated
trailers, photos, and other media, and provide confirmation that [they] have done so,
and (2) remit all owed royalties.

28.
8
9
Defendants failed to respond to, or take any action in response to, the
January 2016 Case-and-Desist Demand. Instead, Defendants continued to brazenly
10
infringe the Film.
11
E.
Plaintiffs February 2016 Cease-and-Desist Demand.

29.
12
On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff sent another cease-and-desist demand to
13
Defendants (the February 2016 Cease-and-Desist Demand). In it, Plaintiff stated,
14
quite unequivocally:
15
Within five (5) days, I expect to receive: (1) written confirmation

from you that you have ceased distributing Loud and Deep and have
removed it, and all associated trailers, photos, and other media, from
www.jts.tv; (2) payment of all unpaid royalties, plus 10% interest on
any past due amounts; and (3) all quarterly reports from January 2014
to present. If you fail to comply with this demand, I intend to sue.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The letter warned Defendants of their potential liability and monetary exposure, and
cited legal authority. Plaintiff served the letter by both email and U.S.P.S. Certified
mail.
30.
Mason responded by email that same day (February 8), acknowledging
receipt of both the January and February 2016 Cease-and-Desist Demands. Mason
stated:
24
25
26
27
28
Im working on royalty payments this week . . . . Im taking [the

Film] down first thing after I get out royalty payments as a courtesy to
you and not waiting until the end of this term. Royalties are a priority
for me, since we are so dreadfully behind. I now have control of all
that I need to in order for me to make payments, so that is my top
priority this week.
Mason promised that Plaintiff would get a Royalty check next week. He also
6
COMPLAINT
claimed to have sent several replies to Plaintiff, but the JTS.TV emails are getting
rejected, and I encourage you to check with your email provider to find out why
legitimate emails are not getting through.

31.
The next day, February 9, 2016, Plaintiff responded to Masons email,
stating, Im not aware of any problem with my email. Please attach the other emails
you claim to have sent me. Plaintiff also warned that the film needs to be taken off
your site immediately. If it has not been taken down by Saturday [February 13, 2016],
I intend to sue.
32.
Later that day, February 9, Mason responded with a belligerent email.
10
He repeatedly claimed that Plaintiff was accusing [him] of lying. He stated: This
11
is my plan, and Im not changing it: I am going to pay royalties first before taking
12
down [the Film]. (Emphasis added.) He claimed that JTS was a one-man show
13
now and he was doing everything by [him]self. He promised to mak[e] payments
14
before Saturday[, February 13, 2016] and make sure [Plaintiff would be] paid first
15
in the list of payments. (Emphasis added.) He further promised to take down the
16
Film by Saturday, but only as a courtesy to Plaintiff, because, according Mason,
17
the term of the Agreement somehow did not end for another full month and a little bit
18
of time. (Emphasis added.) Mason threatened: We have 25 hours of pre-trial
19
protection if you plan to sue, and if I get a legal notice . . . I will send said notice to
20
our attorneys. Finally, Mason stated that this is the end of our communication and
21
[y]ou will not receive any more correspondence from me.

33.
22
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
Masons February 9, 2016 email is set forth in full below:
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
34.
13
14
15
Plaintiff, stating: I take honesty and integrity seriously.

F.
16
19
22
removed from the Website.

36.
25
26
27
28
In that same email, Mason claimed that he was unable to complete
royalties this week due to a health issue. He falsely promised that he would get
royalty payments out early next week.
37.
23
24
On Saturday, February 13, 2016, Mason emailed Plaintiff and falsely
stated: I . . . remove[d] Loud and Deep from JTS.TV. In fact, the Film had not been
20
21
Defendants Continued Lies, Deceit, False Promises, and

Willful Infringement.
35.
17
18
Several minutes after sending this email, Mason sent another email to
As of the filing date of this Complaint, March 10, 2016, Defendants have
continued, unabated, to willfully infringe the Film. The following screenshot, taken
on March 9, 2016, is currently displayed on the Website at the URL
www.jts.tv/previews/loudanddeep:
///
///
8
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
38.
As shown above, the page prominently displays the Poster underneath
17
JTSs trademark and the title Loud and Deep. It states that users can WATCH
18
NOW. It urges users to Start Your Free Trial, or pay $39.99 for a Discounted
19
Yearly Pass, or pay $3.99 for a Monthly Pass. When a non-subscriber clicks on
20
the WATCH NOW button, a trailer for the Film plays. The trailer features nearly
21
two minutes of footage, music, and sound from the Film, including key scenes that
22
constitute the heart of the Film. The trailer is preceded by JTSs trademark.
23
39.
As of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has still not received the
24
promised Royalties or any Quarterly Reports, and has received no further updates
25
from Defendants.
26
G.
27
Masons Liability.
40.
Under the Copyright Act, liability for copyright infringement extends to
28
9
COMPLAINT
any person in the chain of infringement. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges, that Mason was a primary actor in the chain of infringement, and that
he personally was responsible for posting, continuing to post, hosting, and failing to
remove the Film from the Website, based on the following:

(a)
5
6
Mason, do[es] everything by [him]self (emphasis added);

(b)
7
8
(c)
On February 9, 2016, Mason again represented to Plaintiff that he
(Mason) would personally handle the removal of the Film from the Website;
(d)
11
12
On February 8, 2016, Mason represented to Plaintiff that he
(Mason) would personally handle the removal of the Film from the Website;
9
10
By Masons own admission, JTS is a a one-man show and he,
Mason falsely represented to Plaintiff that the Film had been
removed from the Website by himself (Mason) as of February 13, 2016;

(e)
Virtually all of Plaintiffs communications with JTS were with
15
(f)
Mason executed the Agreement on behalf of JTS;
16
(g)
Mason sent the Agreement to Plaintiff;
17
(h)
Carter@cartermasongroup.com which Plaintiff is informed and
13
14
Mason;
18
believes is one of Masons email addresses is the registrant email and administrative
19
email associated with the Website;
20
21
(i)
Mason is the CEO, Managing Member, and Co-Founder of
(j)
Mason holds himself out as an expert and sophisticate in law and
JTS; and
22
23
business who is able to attend to any and all . . . legal and business consulting
24
needs; thus, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Masons
25
actions were knowing, strategic, and deliberate, and he was at all times fully aware of
26
the legal implications of his conduct.
27
///
28
///
10
COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
(17 U.S.C. 106 and 501)
(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
5
6
7
41.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 40 of this Complaint
as if fully alleged herein.

42.
As alleged above, Plaintiff authored the Film, complied with all laws
governing copyright, and secured the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the
copyright of the Film.
10
43.
Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Defendants, through
11
their acts alleged herein, have infringed Plaintiffs exclusive rights of reproduction,
12
distribution and display of the Film, in violation of sections 106 and 501 of the
13
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106 and 501.
14
44.
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. section 504(a)(2) and (c), Plaintiff is entitled to
15
recover an award of statutory damages for Defendants acts of copyright infringement,
16
and such damages should be increased to the statutory maximum of $150,000 because
17
Defendants infringement has been willful.
18
45.
Pursuant 17 U.S.C. section 502, Plaintiff has and will continue to sustain
19
irreparable harm as a result of Defendants conduct, and he is without an adequate
20
remedy at law. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that unless
21
enjoined and restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe Plaintiffs
22
exclusive rights in the Film. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to preliminary and
23
permanent injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin Defendants continuing infringing
24
conduct.
25
26
27
28
46.
Pursuant 17 U.S.C. section 503, Plaintiff is entitled to the impoundment
and destruction of all copies of the Film made or used by Defendants.

47.
Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. section 505, Plaintiff is entitled to costs of suit and
any attorneys fees that he may incur.

11
COMPLAINT
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(By Plaintiff Against JTS)
4
5
48.
49.
The Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract.
50.
Plaintiff performed all of his obligations under the Agreement.
51.
JTS failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement and failed to fulfill
9
10
11
12
13
its obligations under the Agreement, by (a) failing to pay Plaintiff the Royalties due to
him, and (b) failing to provide Quarterly Reports.
52.
By reason of the foregoing, JTS has materially breached its contractual
obligations to Plaintiff under the Agreement.

53.
JTSs material breach of the Agreement is the legal cause of substantial
14
damages to Plaintiff, for which Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in an amount to be
15
determined at the time of trial.
16
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17
FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN
18
(Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a))
19
(By Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
20
21
22
23
24
54.

55.
Upon termination of the Agreement, any affiliation, connection, or
association between the Film, on the one hand, and Defendants, on the other, ended.
56.
Defendants continued (a) display and distribution of the Film and the
25
Poster on the Website, (b) display and distribution of the Film and the Poster on
26
webpages displaying JTSs trademark, (c) and display and distribution of a trailer for
27
the Film preceded by a display of JTSa trademark, constitute uses in interstate
28
commerce and a false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or

12
COMPLAINT
false or misleading representation of fact, which is likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive, as to the affiliation, connection, or association between
the Film and JTS.
57.
Such false designation of origin, false or misleading description, or false
or misleading representation is an infringement of Plaintiffs rights in violation of the
Lanham Act section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
7
8
58.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a), Plaintiff is entitled to recover the
damages suffered by him, Defendants profits, and costs of suit.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10
ACCOUNTING
11
(By Plaintiff Against JTS)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
59.

60.
Defendants have failed and refused to provide Plaintiff with Quarterly
Reports, as required under the Agreement.

61.
The amount of Royalties owed to Plaintiff is unknown to him at this time
and can only be determined with certainty by JTS.

62.
Therefore, the Court should order JTS to provide Plaintiff with a complete
and accurate accounting of all Royalties owed to him.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
20
21
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them,
22
as follows:
23
As to the First Cause of Action for Copyright Infringement:
24
1.
For statutory damages in the amount of $150,000, pursuant to 17 U.S.C.

section 504(a)(2) and (c);
25
26
2.
For an injunction, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. section 502;
27
3.
For an Order directing that all copies of the Film in Defendants
28
possession, custody, or control be impounded and destroyed, pursuant to

13
COMPLAINT
17 U.S.C. section 503;
1
2
4.
For Plaintiffs costs of suit, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. section 505; and
5.
For any attorneys fees that Plaintiff may incur, pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
section 505.
4
5
6
7
As to the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Contract:

1.
For compensatory damages.
As to the Third Cause of Action for False Designation of Origin:
1.
For Plaintiffs damages, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a);
2.
For Defendants profits, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a);
10
3.
For an injunction; and
11
4.
For Plaintiffs costs of suit, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).
12
13
As to the Fourth Cause of Action for an Accounting:

1.
accountant appointed by the Court.
14
15
For an accounting at JTSs expense by an independent certified public
For All Causes of Action:
16
1.
For prejudgment interest at the maximum rate permitted by law; and
17
2.
For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
18
19
20
21
22
Dated: March 10, 2016

By: /s/ Adam Kargman
ADAM KARGMAN
In Pro Se
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff Adam Kargman hereby requests a jury trial on all issues properly
triable to a jury.
4
5
6
7
8
Dated: March 10, 2016

By: /s/ Adam Kargman
ADAM KARGMAN
In Pro Se
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
COMPLAINT

Kargman v. Just The Story - Copyright Complaint PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kargman v. Just The Story - Copyright Complaint PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

Adam Kargman, Esq., SBN 212109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. ___________________

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2

Plaintiff Adam Kargman (Plaintiff), complaining of the above-named

belief insofar as they pertain to the Defendants identities and conduct:

This is a case of brazen and willful copyright infringement, egregious

failure to pay royalties, and unfair competition.

Plaintiff is an award-winning independent filmmaker. He is the author

15-minute slapstick comedy.

Defendants are (a) Just the Story LLC (JTS), a subscription-based,

Distribution Agreement (the Agreement) with JTS, in which he agreed to license

for five consecutive quarters, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement.

distribute the Film terminated, Defendants JTS and Mason (collectively,

Defendants) brazenly continued to distribute it. Defendants have ignored

Through their lies, deceit, false promises, willful infringement, failure to

comply with multiple cease-and-desist demands, failure to communicate, threats, and

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3

other misconduct, Defendants have virtually invited this lawsuit.

Plaintiff is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

Defendant Just the Story LLC (JTS) is a limited liability company

of business in Redondo Beach, California. JTS bills itself as a premium digital

television network that is committed to bringing . . . top quality independent shows

creators/owners, in furtherance of the vision of the network to provide creators with

a fair and sustainable partnership.

Defendant Carter Mason (Mason) is a resident of Los Angeles County,

California. He is the CEO, Managing Member, and Co-Founder of JTS. According

(www.cartermasongroup.com), based in Redondo Beach, California, through which

he purports to provide entertainment clients with legal consulting, legal

though Mason is not a licensed California attorney.

At all times relevant hereto, Mason was acting as an agent or employee

JURISDICTION AND VENUE.

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4

the laws of the State of California.

that JTS resides and transacts business in the State of California.

in that Mason resides and transacts business in the State of California.

omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.

Office (Registration No. PAu-3-667-450), which registration became effective on

Film. The Poster is shown below:

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5

The Digital Distribution Agreement.

Agreement provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Plaintiff granted JTS, during the contractual term (discussed

of online or other electronic forms of distribution.

JTS promised to pay a quarterly royalty (the Royalty) to

The Royalty was to be calculated as follows: 50% of net revenue

percentage of viewing by JTS.TV subscribers. For example, if there is $10,000 in the

$1,000 as their monthly royalty disbursement.

JTS promised that there will be a guaranteed payment each

JTS promised to act in good faith at all times toward [Plaintiff]

Case 2:16-cv-01656-FMO-SS Document 1 Filed 03/10/16 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:6

and to openly report the breakdown of revenue.

The initial term of the Agreement was 12 months. After the

at least 30 days notice.

Defendants released the Film on the Website in February 2014, within 21

days of delivery of the Film.

In or about May or June 2014, Plaintiff received a handwritten check

verifying whether he was being paid what he was owed.

To date, Plaintiff has received no further Royalties from JTS. Plaintiff