Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:21-cv-60841

MJ CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE owner/registrant of

[Link],

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff MJ Capital Funding, LLC (“Plaintiff”) sues defendant John Doe (“Defendant”),

and alleges as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Florida with its principal place of business located in Broward County, Florida. All

members of Plaintiff are individuals who are citizens of Florida and no other State.

2. Defendant is believed to be an individual using the alias “Johnathan Aaronson” or

“Johnathan Aaronso” (neither of which appear to be Defendant’s actual name) who is a citizen of

the organized and existing under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania with its principal place of

business located at 400 E. Station Ave., #225, Coopersburg, PA 18036.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under state

law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

DESOUZA LAW, P.A.

3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 2 of 8

4. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has maintained

sufficient minimum contacts with Florida such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over

Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Further, as set

forth herein, Defendant purposefully directed disparaging statements to the State of Florida by

making false statements about Plaintiff, a company Defendant knows to be located in Florida. The

effects of these disparaging remarks were clearly felt in the State of Florida, where Plaintiff

suffered loss of goodwill, harm to its reputation, and pecuniary loss.

5. Venue properly lies in this district because a substantial part of the events or

omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district.

FACTS

I. Plaintiff’s Business

6. Plaintiff engages in the business of providing merchant cash advances to businesses

located in Florida and throughout the United States. Generally stated, Plaintiff provides funds to

small business owners in exchange for a percentage of the business’ income over a specified period

of time. The total amount to be repaid is calculated by a factor rate, a multiplier generally based

on a business’ financial status.

7. Plaintiff was created as a Florida limited liability company on June 10, 2020.

8. On July 29, 2020, Plaintiff registered the domain [Link] and

thereafter has utilized an interactive website at such domain to conduct a substantial amount of

business.

9. Plaintiff’s website provides background information on how Plaintiff can assist

small businesses with merchant cash advances and further invites business owners to fill out an

online application for funding (in addition to providing other contact methods).

2
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 3 of 8

10. Plaintiff’s website (together with its other marketing material) prominently displays

Plaintiff’s logo/service mark:

11. Since its inception, Plaintiff has rapidly developed a loyal customer following in

addition to relationships with several key funding partners (who provide investment monies that

are then used to provide the subject merchant cash advances).

II. “[Link]”

12. On April 10, 2021, Defendant registered the domain [Link]

(substantially identical to Plaintiff’s website with an additional “s” at the end).

13. Following that date, Defendant published a website on the domain that, on its initial

splash page, purports to suggest that Plaintiff is operating a Ponzi scheme through its merchant

cash advance business.1

14. Defendant’s website purports to provide an “investigation into MJ Capital

Funding,” concluding (without a scintilla of evidence in support) that Plaintiff is operating a

“massive” Ponzi scheme and directing consumers to not invest or do business with Plaintiff.

15. Defendant’s website goes on to call Plaintiff’s merchant cash advance business a

“scam” and further states that “my [Defendant] team and I are putting together a group of

defrauded investors to file a lawsuit which will then trigger a criminal investigation.”

16. The website contains an “About” page which purports to provide information about

1
True and correct copies of the various sub-pages of Defendant’s website are attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
3
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 4 of 8

the author – “Johnathan Aaronson” who represents himself as a “private citizen journalist who

exposes fraudulent business operations.”

17. For the reasons discussed below, “Johnathan Aaronson” appears to be a fake name

(corresponding to a fake driver’s license that was provided to Plaintiff via e-mail) utilized by the

website’s author to accomplish an extortion scheme (which, upon information and belief, Plaintiff

is not the first victim of).

III. Defendant’s Attempted Extortion

18. On or about April 11, 2021, Defendant’s website was brought to Plaintiff’s

attention through communications with a prospective merchant/customer account.

19. Upon learning of the website, Plaintiff (through Johanna M. Garcia, one of

Plaintiff’s members) on April 11, 2021 submitted a contact form on the [Link]

website which notified the owner thereof that he/she was infringing on Plaintiff’s name and

disparaging/defaming Plaintiff with the content. The message further demanded that Defendant

take down its website.

20. On April 13, 2021, Defendant (using the alias “Johnathan Aaronso” – a likely

misspelling of Defendant’s other alias “Johnathan Aaronson”) responded via e-mail to Ms. Garcia

by using the e-mail address info@[Link].

21. Defendant responded that all of the allegations on the [Link]

website are the truth and that the content of the website is “constitutionally protected 1st

amendment exercise.”

22. In subsequent e-mails exchanged between the parties, however, the notion that

Defendant is somehow a crusader for justice or a “journalist” was exposed as a sham.

23. Indeed, when questioned about what (if anything) Defendant was seeking to

4
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 5 of 8

remove the website, Defendant quickly responded by demanding payment of “$150,000 for the

url” with the main ‘deal’ points being that Defendant would transfer the domain to Plaintiff and

sign a non-disclosure/confidentiality agreement “that will prohibit me from even mentioning your

company online or offline for 15 years.”

24. For a supposed citizen journalist interested only in exposing purported scams,

Defendant jumped at the opportunity to offer his silence in exchange for payment of a ransom.

25. Defendant initially demanded payment via a “crypto wallet” to keep his/her identity

a secret.

26. Ultimately, however, Defendant’s greed outshone his caution and Defendant

provided a method of payment via [Link] (a digital payment company) and later

provided a routing/bank account number to accept payment of his/her ransom.

27. Notably, Defendant sent provided an invoice through [Link] in which

his/her account is identified as being “TLT Solutions Inc” and routing/bank account information

for an account that is identified as being “Dall Web Services.”

28. Although Defendant temporarily disabled the subject website while the parties

discussed payment of Defendant’s ransom, Defendant has threatened to (and is expected to follow

through on his threat) reinstate the website given Plaintiff’s non-payment.

29. All conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACPA)

30. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as set forth above.

31. At all times material hereto, Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s existence and that

Plaintiff was the owner/operator of [Link].

32. Defendant has, in bad faith, profited from Plaintiff’s name/mark by registering and
5
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 6 of 8

operating a domain name ([Link]) that is confusingly similar to that of

Plaintiff (adding only an additional “s” at the end of the domain name).

33. Defendant intentionally and in bad faith registered, trafficked in, and used a domain

name ([Link]) that is identical or confusingly similar to Plaintiff’s registered

domain name with the purpose of diverting consumers from Plaintiff’s domain and to cause

consumers to not do business with Plaintiff.

34. Defendant’s bad faith is most obviously evidenced by Defendant’s demand for

payment of a $150,000.00 ransom for Plaintiff to purchase the subject domain (notwithstanding

Defendant’s public perception that he is somehow a citizen journalist who registered the domain

solely for altruistic reasons).

35. The above-referenced unfair practice of diverting consumers from Plaintiff’s

domain placed Plaintiff in danger of suffering damages to its business, goodwill, and reputation

by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of

the site (especially given that Defendant copies Plaintiff’s logo in various areas of his/her website).

36. Indeed, Plaintiff has received no less than 15 – 20 inquiries from merchants,

employees, and other persons with respect to the allegations on [Link] and

Plaintiff has lost substantial business as a result of Defendant’s actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for forfeiture or

cancellation of the [Link] domain or transfer of same to Plaintiff pursuant to

15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(1)(C), compensatory damages (or statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. §

1117(d) if so elected by Plaintiff), preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, costs and

reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

6
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 7 of 8

COUNT TWO: DEFAMATION/BUSINESS DISPARAGEMENT

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as set forth above.

38. As set forth more fully above, Defendant has made numerous defamatory and

disparaging statements about Plaintiff through publication of [Link]. As set

forth above, Defendant has stated that Plaintiff is operating a Ponzi scheme, that Plaintiff is a

“scam,” that Defendant has been contacted by numerous disgruntled investors, etc.

39. These statements were false when made. Plaintiff maintains a small number of

investors, all of which are extraordinarily satisfied/happy with their investment to date.

40. Plaintiff does not operate a Ponzi scheme or offer ‘guaranteed’ returns on

investment as suggested by Defendant.

41. Plaintiff enters into written contractual agreements with both its investors and the

merchants receiving cash advances – the investors receive a satisfactory return on their investment

and the merchants receive needed financing for their operations.

42. Notably, the terms of these agreements are not discussed anywhere on Plaintiff’s

website, leading to the conclusion that Defendant is himself a disgruntled former employee of

Plaintiff or someone who is in actuality working for one of Plaintiff’s competitors to divert

business away (or both).

43. Defendant knew the aforementioned statements were false at the time they were

made.

44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff suffered

substantial damages, including but not limited to lost profits from merchants/investors who were

steered away from doing business with Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s lies. Indeed, Defendant

appears to have paid for search engine optimization/Google Ad-words to place his/her website first

7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 0:21-cv-60841-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/19/2021 Page 8 of 8

or high up in the search results when individuals search for Plaintiff’s site. This has resulted in at

least 15 – 20 merchants, investors, and/or employees reaching out to Plaintiff to express concern

regarding Defendant’s lies.

45. In conducting such acts, Defendant acted with malice or disregard for Plaintiff’s

rights; therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for compensatory

damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an award of costs, and

such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: April 19, 2021. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.

3111 N. University Drive
Suite 301
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 603-1340
DDesouza@[Link]

By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza, Esq.______

Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 19, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document

with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida E-Filing Portal.

DESOUZA LAW, P.A.

By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza, Esq._____

Daniel DeSouza, Esq.

4820-2145-5458, v. 1

8
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
3111 N. UNIVERSITY DRIVE, SUITE 301 • CORAL SPRINGS, FL 33065
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340