CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Masterfile Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Central Portfolio Control, Inc., Defendant. COURT FILE NO. 10-3424 (DWF/JJG)

Defendant Central Portfolio Control, Inc. (CPC), for its answer to Plaintiff Masterfile Corporations (Masterfile) Complaint, states and alleges as follows: CPC denies each and every allegation of the Complaint, except as hereinafter stated, qualified or admitted. 1. In answering Paragraph 1, CPC admits only that Masterfile alleges

copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of the United States, as amended, 17 U.S.C. 101 et. seq., (the Copyright Act), and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint. 2. CPC admits generally the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint,

however, CPC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether this action was filed within the applicable statute of limitations and that Masterfile has the proper copyright registrations necessary to institute this action for copyright infringement.

1670388v1

CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 2 of 6

3.

CPC generally admits the allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint,

however, CPC is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether venue is proper in this judicial district. 4. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 5. 6. company CPC admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint. In answering paragraph 6 of the Complaint, CPC admits that it is a engaged in debt collection and that its website address is

www.cpcpayments.com, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. In answering paragraph 7 of the Complaint, CPC admits generally that it

does business in Minnesota, but alleges the terms products and services and solicits clients as used in paragraph 7 are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and, therefore denies the same. 8. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 9. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.
1670388v1

CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 3 of 6

10.

CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 11. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 12. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 13. CPC lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same. 14. In answering paragraph 14, CPC admits only that Certificates of

Registration were attached as Exhibit B to Masterfiles Complaint, and otherwise denies the allegations in paragraph 14 of the Complaint. 15. In answering paragraph 15, CPC admits only that Exhibit C to Masterfiles

Complaint attached what purport to be copies of printouts from a page of CPCs website on or about March 10, 2010, and otherwise lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the Complaint and, therefore, denies the same.

1670388v1

CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 4 of 6

16.

In answering paragraph 16, CPC alleges it received correspondence from

Masterfile dated March 23, 2010, and denies any allegation contained in paragraph 16 of Masterfiles Complaint that is inconsistent with the express terms of Masterfiles March 23, 2010 letter taken as a whole. 17. 18. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. In answering paragraph 18, CPC admits only that it removed the images

annexed to Masterfiles Complaint as Exhibit C from its website, and otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. In answering paragraph 19 of Masterfiles Complaint, CPC restates and

realleges all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Complaint. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. CPC denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Complaint. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred because it does not have valid copyright registrations for the Images as required by 17 U.S.C. 411 of the Copyright Act to institute an action for copyright infringement.

1670388v1

CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 5 of 6

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred because its alleged copyright infringement claim(s) accrued beyond the three (3) year statute of limitations in 17 U.S.C. 507 of the Copyright Act. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles alleged damages are limited because the Images are a compilation or derivative work, and therefore constitute one work under 17 U.S.C. 504 of the Copyright Act. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles alleged damages, if any, are limited by 17 U.S.C. 1203(c)(5) of the Copyright Act. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred by its failure to mitigate damages. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE If Plaintiff was damaged as set forth in its Complaint, Plaintiffs damages were caused in whole or in part by the fault or conduct of persons or entities over whom this answering Defendant had no control, or right to control, and for whose conduct it is not liable.

1670388v1

CASE 0:10-cv-03424-DWF-JJG Document 8 Filed 10/01/10 Page 6 of 6

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Masterfiles claims are barred because Plaintiff failed to join parties indispensible to a just adjudication of this action. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CPC reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Copyright Act, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further action or investigation in this case. WHEREFORE, CPC prays for entry of judgment as follows: 1. Plaintiff Masterfiles Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and that

Masterfile take nothing thereby; 2. 3. CPC be awarded its costs incurred herein; For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Association

Dated: October 1, 2010

By s/Matthew P. Kostolnik Matthew P. Kostolnik (#310669) Glen E. Schumann (#122117) 4800 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis MN 55402-4129 Telephone: (612) 877-5000 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

1670388v1