Misappropriation of Name or Likeness in California

s demurrer to the fourth and fifth causes of action in the cross-complaint filed by Robert McKee is sustained without leave to amend as to the fourth cause of action for violation of Civil Code 3344 and overruled as to the fifth cause of action for common law appropriation of name. Mr.

Plaintiffs operative Complaint alleges: (1) common law misappropriation of likeness, and (2) statutory misappropriation of likeness in violation of Civil Code §3344. On February 23, 2023, the court granted Defendants motion for forum non conveniens and stayed this action pending litigation in Texas on the condition that Defendant: 1) formally appear and consent to jurisdiction in Texas; 2) agree to waive any applicable statute of limitations; and 3) stipulate to a special setting for an early trial date.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed July 13, 2018, asserts causes of action for commercial appropriation of likeness under Civil Code section 3344, common law misappropriation of likeness, false light, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act against Dr. Lin and also Vision Institute of Southern California dba IQ Laser Vision (“IQ Laser Vision”). Dr.

The Court has read and considered Defendant DOMI's Special Motions (ROA # 508 and 511) to Strike Plaintiffs' Complaint, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP statute), and notes that the scope of the Motions broadly encompasses Plaintiffs' twelve causes of action ... (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) False Promise; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Misappropriation of Likeness (Common Law); (6) Misappropriation of Name & Likeness (Cal. Civ.

Third and fourth causes of action for misappropriation of likeness Jin moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action for statutory misappropriation of likeness pursuant to Civil Code § 3344 and the fourth cause of action for common law misappropriation of likeness [invasion of privacy]. “[C]ourts have recognized four distinct forms of tortious invasion of privacy: (1) the commercial appropriation of the plaintiff’s name or likeness (codified in California in 1971 in Civ.

The proposed first amended complaint (PFAC) makes two specific changes to the original complaint: (1) The PFAC adds to the prayer a request for an injunction “enjoining and restraining the CRUNCHIES FOOD COMPANY, LLC from using Plaintiff’s UPC Codes on its packaging, and from marketing, packing, distributing, and/or selling its products bearing Plaintiff’s UPC Codes”; and, (2) The PFAC adds a new third cause of action for appropriation of name and likeness pursuant to Civil Code section 3344.

Background Claimant, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Petitioner, filed a Complaint against Defendant Think Operations, LLC (“Defendant”) on February 10, 2020, for (1) common law misappropriation of likeness and (2) violation of California Civil Code §3344 (statutory misappropriation of likeness for Defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of Claimant’s likeness marketing its products.

(“West Bay”) alleging (1) common law misappropriation of likeness and (2) violation of Cal. Civ. Code §3344. Plaintiffs are models represented by the talent agency Direct2Pro, LLC. West Bay is a company that sells wigs, hair extension and accessories online. West Bay photographed the Plaintiffs and had a three year usage rights to Plaintiffs’ images which has since expired. Plaintiffs allege West Bay has continued to use Plaintiffs’ images without authorization.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed July 13, 2018, asserts causes of action for commercial appropriation of likeness under Civil Code section 3344, common law misappropriation of likeness, false light, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act against Dr. Lin and also Vision Institute of Southern California dba IQ Laser Vision (“Vision Institute”). Dr.

Oh seeks leave to amend to add a twelfth cause of action under Civil Code § 3344 with a corresponding request for attorneys’ fees. The statutory claim arises out of the same facts as the common law claims for invasion of privacy asserted in the FAC. Additionally, the elements of the claims are largely identical. “Under section 3344, a plaintiff must prove all the elements of the common law cause of action.

Plaintiffs have claimed both common law misappropriation of likeness and statutory misappropriation of likeness under Cal. Civ. Code §3344.

Ho seeks punitive damages on his claims for commercial misappropriation of likeness under Civil Code section 3344, common law misappropriation of likeness, false light, public disclosure of private facts, and violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Defendants contend that none of the facts alleged in support of the FAC rise to the level of malice, oppression, or fraud.

Code § 3344); misappropriation of name or likeness; invasion of privacy; and injunctive relief. The requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 have been met. (See generally Murray Decl., Exhs. 1; Supp. Murray Decl.). Th e motion is unopposed. There is no showing of prejudice. GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file the third amended complaint within 5 court days.

Code §3344 and 3344.1: Pursuant to Civ. Code §3344, any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. (Civ. Code §3344(a)(1).) Civ.

Code §3344 and 3344.1: Pursuant to Civ. Code §3344, any person who knowingly uses another’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person. (Civ. Code §3344(a)(1).) Civ.

At minimum, the third and fourth causes of action for misappropriation of likeness represent different primary rights such that the anti-SLAPP motion narrowed the legal issues in this action and consequently the anticipated scope of discovery. In addition, it appears that a further benefit of the anti-SLAPP motion from moving party’s point of view, is that a basis for obtaining attorneys’ fees has been eliminated. (See Civ. Code § 3344.)

Demurrer to 2nd COA for Misappropriation of Likeness: Sustained with Leave to Amend Plaintiff Jessica alleges that defendants are using pictures of her in their advertisements, in violation of Civil Code §3344. Pursuant thereto, any person who knowingly uses another's likeness on products or advertisements without such person's prior consent shall be liable for damages and/or disgorgement.

Second, Defendant ignores the statutory damages available under section 3344: the greater of $750 or the actual damages suffered by the victim. (Civ. Code § 3344(a).) These statutory damages are specifically alleged in the First Amended Complaint. (FAC, ¶ 107.) Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient ultimate facts to state a cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 3344 against this Defendant.

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) fraud; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Breach of Contract; (6) Common Count; (7) Appropriation of Name or Likeness (Common Law); and (8) Appropriation of Name or Likeness (Civ. Code § 3344.) On April 11, 2023, Plaintiffs attorney served Request for Production of Documents on Defendant Rowley & Reynolds Forensic Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, common law commercial misappropriation of name and likeness, and statutory commercial misappropriation of name and likeness (Civil Code § 3344). On November 20, 2017, Defendant filed its Verified Answer, alleging nine affirmative defenses. Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that Defendant’s Answer contains no facts sufficient to constitute an affirmative defense.

Plaintiff has asserted causes of action for Violation of Civil Code § 3344, Violation of Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. and Trade Dress Infringement against defendants.

Violation of Civil Code § 3344 2. Violation of Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness 3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 4. Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. 5. Trade Dress Infringement A Case Management Conference is set for 2/17/17. Defendants Joe Kline and Kline’s Plumbing, Inc.

As a result, summary adjudication of these causes of action is also DENIED. 5th COA: Misappropriation of Name & Likeness (Common Law) 6th COA: Misappropriation of Name & Likeness (Civil Code § 3344) Although Defendant DOMI's Separate Statement addresses causes of action 5 and 6, its memorandum only addresses the sixth cause of action. As a result, summary adjudication of the fifth cause of action is DENIED.

Does any person under Civil Code section 3344 apply to public entities? First, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs claim for appropriation should be dismissed because The Regents is a state entity, and is not a person subject to statutes of general application like Civil Code Section 3344.

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Common Law Right of Publicity and Third Cause of Action for Statutory Right of Publicity (Civil Code 3344) A common law cause of action for appropriation of name or likeness may be pleaded by alleging (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiffs identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiffs name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury.

However, Civil Code 3344 was meant to prevent parties from misappropriating a signature to advertise. sell. or solicit goods or services. It is understood that "[t]he right of publicity protects the celebrity, not the consumer." (In re NCAA StudenrAthlete Name & Lil

The total amount sought here is $181,236.60, comprised of $150,547.20 in attorneys fees related to the anti-SLAPP motion, $602.81 in costs, $22,1884.00 for the instant motion for attorneys fees, and $8,501.00 in attorneys fees for the appropriation of name and likeness claim. The Court has conducted its own review of the billing records attached to Defendants motion. The Court finds the amounts requested for the anti-SLAPP motion are reasonable.

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Common Count; (5) Appropriation of Name or Likeness (Common Law); and (6) Appropriation of Name or Likeness (Civ. Code § 3344.) Defendant, Rowley & Reynolds Forensic Engineering, Inc and Cross-Complainant, Matthew Reynolds now file a demurrer to the SAC. B.

However, the number of hours spent by defendants' counsel on this case, particularly given their high billing rates, far exceeds what is recoverable per the last sentence in Civil Code 3344(a) due to lack of novelty and simplicity of the questions involved. (Cates v. Chiang (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 791, 822 (negative multiplier may be based on factors including "the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved," any one of which may be sufficient).)

Rather, as noted by the court’s statement of decision, “there is a clear violation by Defendant of Civil Code section 3344 and of the common law.” Thus, Plaintiff fully achieved its litigation objective, to demonstrate liability and recover damages from Defendant, which is a simple, unqualified win. (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.) The court therefore finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under Civ. Code § 3344.

Violation of Civil Code § 3344 2. Violation of Common Law Misappropriation of Likeness 3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 4. Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. 5. Trade Dress Infringement The Final Status Conference is set for 9/25/17. A jury trial is set for 10/3/17. Plaintiff Keith Klein, doing business as Klein Plumbing and Drain Cleaning (“plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Kline’s Plumbing, Inc.

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to allege a cause of action for violation of his right of publicity under the common law or Civil Code 3344, Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. No cause of action lies pursuant to statute or common law for the use of an individuals name or likeness in connection with a public affair or matter of public interest. See Civil Code 3344(d); Daly (N.D.

Harcourt involved circumstances in which defendants reprinted a magazine article containing the plaintiff’s name in a textbook; the plaintiff sued the textbook manufacturers asserting claims that included appropriation of name or likeness for commercial purposes. (Harcourt, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 883-885.)

Separate Statement fact no. 39. 6th COA: Misappropriation of Name & Likeness (Civil Code § 3344) The statutory claim provides: "Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, ... shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) professional negligence, (2) common law misappropriation of likeness, (3) violation of California Civil Code section 3344 (statutory misappropriation of likeness), (4) defamation and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress. This hearing is on Defendants demurrer and motion to strike the complaint.

The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) misappropriation of likeness or identity, (2) violation of California Civil Code § 3344, (3) invasion of privacy false light, (4) business defamation, (5) tortious interference with business relations, (6) tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) unfair business practices, and (8) declaratory relief.

Code §3344(a).) In the FAC, COA 2 alleges at ¶ 18 that “ [t]he photographs of JESSICA' s mouth are clear and readily identifiable with JESSICA's name being asserted and attached to each such photograph.” But she does not allege that her full name is stated or otherwise explain how she is “readily identifiable” from the postings. The Demurrer as to COA 2 is thus again SUSTAINED.

DISCUSSION On 10/1116, Plaintiff filed her TAC for (1) CL Misappropriation of Likeness and (2) Violation of CA Civil Code § 3344 (Statutory Misappropriation of Likeness) against Defendants Merz, et al. On/about 8/31/12, Plaintiff agreed to have photographs taken of her for limited commercial use by Merz.

Misappropriation of Name Civ.

Code § 221; (15) Failure to Provide Sick Leave; (16) Failure to Pay Final Wages; (17) Failure to Produce Personnel Records; (18) Failure to Produce Wage Records; (19) Misappropriation of Likeness or Identity (Civ. Code § 3344); (20) Failure to Pay All Wages Earned; and (21) Unfair Business Practices.

Code § 3344(a). However, Plaintiff has not provided their hourly rate or the hours worked on the case, to determine if the amount requested is reasonable.

MJI and Javahery now move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all of the following issues: Issue Number 1: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Has No Merit Because Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Establish Essential Elements. Issue Number 2: The First Cause of Action for Right of Publicity Under Civil Code Section 3344 Is Barred by The Two-Year Statute of Limitations Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 339.

The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) misappropriation of likeness or identity, (2) violation of California Civil Code § 3344, (3) invasion of privacy false light, (4) business defamation, (5) tortious interference with business relations, (6) tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) unfair business practices, and (8) declaratory relief.

ISSUE 1: THAT “PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §3344”. Summary adjudication of the 1st c/a in the complaint is Denied. First, it is unclear who summary adjudication is sought against. (See Issue 1, Notice of Motn.) The Notice of Motion refers to Does 1 to 20 but no material facts were offered in Facts 1 to 14 to support any involvement of the Does.

Further, because Defendant's Event ID: 2886452 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 29 Page: 1 CASE TITLE: SANCHEZ VS CORECIVIC OF CASE NUMBER: 37-2021-00046382-CU-WT-CTL TENNESSEE LLC [IMAGED] special motion to strike challenged the first through eighth causes of action, the ninth and tenth causes of action (violation of Civil Code § 3344 and failure to provide personnel records in violation of Labor Code § 1198.5) are not embraced in or affected by the appeal.

Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97 [elements of common law claim]; Civil Code 3344 [elements of statutory claim]. It appears that cross-complainant is trying to allege that cross-defendants opened a bank account in his name without his knowledge. However, that is not what is actually alleged. (Cross-complaint at Para. 74.) The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is sustained in its entirety, with leave to amend. This cause of action is not pled with the specificity required for fraud claims.

The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) misappropriation of likeness or identity, (2) violation of California Civil Code § 3344, (3) invasion of privacy false light, (4) business defamation, (5) tortious interference with business relations, (6) tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) unfair business practices, and (8) declaratory relief.

DEFT 'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION RE MISAPPROPRIATION OF LIKENESS IS DENIED. TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT RE CONSENT AND DAMAGES. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION RE PUNITIVE DAMAGES IS GRANTED. (JH)

Fourth cause of action: appropriation of likeness The appropriation of likeness claim is premised on Dodos impersonating Jackie to the gas utility company. See cross-complaint ¶¶ 30, 58-59. A plaintiff may pursue a common law or statutory appropriation of likeness claim.

Code § 221; (15) Failure to Provide Sick Leave; (16) Failure to Pay Final Wages; (17) Failure to Produce Personnel Records; (18) Failure to Produce Wage Records; (19) Misappropriation of Likeness or Identity (Civ. Code § 3344); (20) Failure to Pay All Wages Earned; and (21) Unfair Business Practices. This action arises from Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants.

Plaintiffs first amended complaint, filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

First Cause of Action: Right of Publicity (Civil Code §3344) “California law has long recognized ‘the right to profit from the commercial value of one's identity as an aspect of the right of publicity.’ ” ( Orthopedic Systems, Inc. v. Schlein (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 529, 544 ( Orthopedic Systems ).) There are two vehicles a plaintiff can use to protect this right: a common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation and a claim under Civil Code, section 3344.

Code section 3344. ( Id . ¶ 40.) As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unauthorized use& Gomez has suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages. ( Id . ¶ 41.) Defendants have further been unjustly enriched by their ill-gotten gains or profits realized from their misappropriation and conspiracy to violate Gomezs statutory rights of publicity. ( Id . ¶ 42.)

Fourth Cause of Action (Misappropriation of Likeness). A. Re: No Cause of Action against Cross-Defendant Bella. A common law misappropriation claim is pleaded by “alleging: ‘(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 793 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639].)

Plaintiffs first amended complaint, filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs first amended complaint (FAC), filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

Defendant’s motion for fees sought only statutory fees for the tort claim, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 and Civil Code section 3344(a). (See Mot. Fees [ROA 230] at 1:7-12.)

Code §3344, (2) invasion of privacy based on misappropriation of identity, (3) unjust enrichment and (4) injunctive relief. This hearing is on Defendants motion to strike Plaintiffs first amended complaint (FAC). Defendant argues that the FAC was filed without leave and after the deadline for an opposition to a demurrer and is accordingly, untimely under Code Civ. Proc. §427(a).

Defendant Mentor Worldwide LLC has filed a general and special demurer to the First Cause of Action for Statutory Misappropriation of Publicity (Civil Code § 3344) and the Second Cause of Action for Common Law Misappropriation of Publicity alleged in Plaintiffs Alice Marie De Leon, Jainmy Martinez, and Sharon Wright’s Complaint.

Code § 3344, subd. (a).) Since Timed Out obtained judgment in its favor, it is the prevailing party, and since one of the claims upon which it prevailed was brought under Civil Code § 3344, it is entitled to attorney fees and costs under Civil Code § 3344. “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.” (Melnyk v.

of name or likeness under Civil Code, section 3344.

Code §3344 [no prior consent required for use of name, photograph, likeness in connection with any news, public affairs].)

Misappropriation of Name or Likeness (Identity Theft) (against D’Angelo and Does 20 to 40); 4. Conspiracy to Commit Identity Theft & Misappropriation of Name or Likeness (against D’Angelo, Phillip Duncan, BHHS Crest Real Estate, Scott Paul, BHHS Affiliates, LLC, and Does 15 to 40); and 5. Dismissed; 6. Unjust Enrichment (against D’Angelo and Does 1 to 5 and 30 to 50); 7. Constructive Trust (against D’Angelo and Does 1 to 5 and 30 to 50); and 8.

Plaintiff is entitled to summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action for violation of California Civil Code § 3344 because Plaintiff has established all elements thereof and there are no valid affirmative defenses. The motion is made on grounds including the following: · The parties entered into an enforceable written contract providing that Defendants had a duty to exclusively use Dr. Ghatan for certain medical procedures and that Defendants had a duty to give Dr.

On November 13, 2017, the Weissmans filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff for (1) continuing private nuisance, (2) IIED, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) appropriation of likeness, (5) breach of CC&Rs, and (6) declaratory relief. On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a TAC for (1) breach of CC&Rs, (2) breach of written contract, (3) breach of oral contract, (4) specific performance, (5) negligence, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) nuisance, and (8) declaratory relief.

Code § 3344, which in relevant part states: Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. On October 12, 2018, MJI and Javahery, individually and on behalf of his minor child Charlotte Javahery filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff. The Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) violation of 15 U.S.C. § 8131, (2) violation of 15 U.S.C.

Plaintiff is entitled to summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action for violation of California Civil Code § 3344 because Plaintiff has established all elements thereof and there are no valid affirmative defenses. The motion is made on grounds including the following: · The parties entered into an enforceable written contract providing that Defendants had a duty to exclusively use Dr. Ghatan for certain medical procedures and that Defendants had a duty to give Dr.

Plaintiffs first amended complaint, filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

Misappropriation of Likeness 20. IIED AND NIED 21. “Oppression” 22. Civil Rico As the court has repeatedly observed in ruling on previous demurrers to the 1st Amended Complaint, this pleading disregards many of the fundamental rules of pleading. CCP §425.10: “(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following: (1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.

Plaintiffs first amended complaint, filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.

Special Interrogatories Numbers 193 and 195 Code of Civil Procedure, section 3344, subdivision (a) provides that any person who knowingly uses another’s image is liable for damages to the person whose image was used without their permission.

Civil Code §3344. In addition to the common law elements, section 3344 requires a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose. Local TV, LLC v. Superior Court (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1, 13. Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of her original ex parte application to conduct discovery, which the Court granted on 6-6-22.

Code § 3344. On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff propounded fifteen sets of discovery on the individually named Defendants, totaling 1,565 requests. (Montez Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff propounded her first set of Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), each containing 106 interrogatories, on Defendants Justin Post, Magdalena Post, Angela Weimer, Brad Weimer, and Brandon Weimer. (Id.)

Good cause is shown as required by CCP §2031.310(b)(1) for this order in that Plaintiff should have the raw data applicable to Belotero so that Plaintiff’s expert may independently calculate Belotero profits as may be recoverable under Civil Code §3344(a.) The response to this Electronically Stored Information may be in a thumb drive some other easily useable form and need not be produced on paper.

The proposed first amended complaint would add causes of action 2 through 10, as follows: (2) Breach of Written Contract; (3) Breach of Implied In Fact Contract; (4) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (5) Promissory Estoppel; (6) Common Law Misappropriation; (7) Misappropriation in Violation of Civil Code §3344; (8) Unjust Enrichment; (9) Quantum Meruit; and (10) Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.

Code § 3344, (2) invasion of privacy based on misappropriation of identity, (3) unjust enrichment and (4) injunctive relief.

Violation of California Civil Code § 3344 2. Violation of Common Law Right of Publicity 3. Unjust Enrichment 4. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 6. Civil Conspiracy 7. Sexual Battery 8. Battery 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Violation of California Civil Code § 3344 2. Violation of Common Law Right of Publicity 3. Unjust Enrichment 4. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 6. Civil Conspiracy 7. Sexual Battery 8. Battery 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Misappropriation of Likeness 20. IIED AND NIED 21. “Oppression” 22. Civil Rico On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. The 1st Amended Complaint is not yet due. The basis, in part, for sustaining Olson’s demurrer was that the complaint was uncertain and unintelligible.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. On October 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s former counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel was granted. On July 10, 2020, the court denied MJI and Javahery’s(“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment without prejudice “at least until the discovery issues are resolved.” (see July 10, 2020 Minute Order at p. 8-9.)

Code, § 3344, for misappropriation of their names, likenesses, and images. "A claim asserted to prevent nothing more than the reproduction, performance, distribution, or display of a dramatic performance captured on film is subsumed by copyright law and preempted." (Fleet v. CBS, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1911, 1924.)

On November 13, 2017, the Weissmans filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff for (1) continuing private nuisance, (2) IIED, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) appropriation of likeness, (5) breach of CC&Rs, and (6) declaratory relief. On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a TAC for (1) breach of CC&Rs, (2) breach of written contract, (3) breach of oral contract, (4) specific performance, (5) negligence, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) nuisance, and (8) declaratory relief.

The operative complaint alleges eight causes of action for (1) misappropriation of likeness or identity, (2) violation of California Civil Code § 3344, (3) invasion of privacy false light, (4) business defamation, (5) tortious interference with business relations, (6) tortious interference with contractual relations, (7) unfair business practices, and (8) declaratory relief. This hearing is on Defendant Heather McDonalds special motion to strike pursuant to Code Civ. Proc.

The Defamation, Misappropriation of Likeness, and Negligence causes of action are based on Merla’s false statement contained in the medical report. (Id. at Pars. 24, 32, 37.) That false report was not part of any judicial proceeding, and therefore does not fall within the scope of CCP 425.16. Defendants also contend that because the medical report may be reviewed by the Medical Board of California, it constitutes a statement made in an official proceeding.

Defendants' demurrer to first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 3344 is overruled. Even if the law still requires allegations of a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose , the complaint contains sufficient allegations. Plaintiff alleges unauthorized use of her image (e.g., ¶¶13, 14, 15), and a connection between that use and Defendants' commercial purpose (e.g., ¶¶17-19, 21, 25.) Demurrer to fourth cause of action for unjust enrichment is overruled.

As do other torts involving invasion of the right of privacy, the tort of appropriation of name and personality, whether labeled a form of intrusion into privacy or a publicity right, invokes constitutional protections. Publication of matters in the public interest, which rests on the right of the public to know, and the freedom of the press to tell it, cannot ordinarily be actionable.

Because plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to show a potential violation of Civil Code section 3344, the unfair competition claim is sufficiently alleged. Plaintiff shall file an answer to the cross-complaint within 10 days of this ruling.

This unequivocally falls within the realm of a commercial purpose as contemplated by Section 3344. (FAC, ¶ 109 .) The FAC is still deficient. Se ction 3344 requires a knowing use by the defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose. ( Local TV, LLC , supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 13.)

Anthony Reading, and (3) $7,530 for Dante Puccinelli as Civil Code section 3344 does not allow for recovery of such costs. In reply, Plaintiff argues that expert costs are allowed pursuant to the parties’ agreement. The parties settlement provided for “payment of all attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to a fee motion wherein Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party under Civil Code Section 3344 for purposes of the fee motion.”

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. On July 10, 2020, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Association of Counsel. The notice indicates that Plaintiff associated in Jordanna G. Thigpen of Thigpen Legal, P.C. as counsel.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two causes of action for: (1) right of publicity under Civil Code, § 3344 and (2) common law right of publicity. On July 10, 2020, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Association of Counsel. The notice indicates that Plaintiff associated in Jordanna G. Thigpen of Thigpen Legal, P.C. as counsel.

Violation of California Civil Code § 3344 2. Violation of Common Law Right of Publicity 3. Unjust Enrichment 4. Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations 5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage 6. Civil Conspiracy 7. Sexual Battery 8. Battery 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 10. Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq .

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) libel, (2) false light invasion of privacy, (3) misappropriation of likeness, and (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Status conference and mediation/MSC setting conference are set for 10/4/16. Motion to Change Venue – On 8/1/16, Defendant filed a motion to change venue to Placer County pursuant to CCP §§ 395(a) and 396b.

The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for: Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Inducement, Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, Violations of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., Breach of the Doctrine of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Accounting and Misappropriation of Likeness. Default was entered against defendants on August 17, 2018. Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against Defendants.

Misappropriation of Likeness 20. IIED AND NIED 21. “Oppression” 22. Civil Rico On June 13, 2019 the court sustained a demurrer by Defendant Carolyn Olson, an employee of Pacific Coast University (“PCU”) to the entire complaint with leave to amend certain causes of action and without leave to amend as to others. On June 25, 2019 the court sustained the demurrers of other PCU employees mostly without leave to amend, but with an opportunity to amend certain negligence based claims.

The Court previously rejected this argument; the flyer can be viewed as a solicitation of services and C C section 3344 (d) is not applicable. Grant without leave to amend as to 2nd cause of action by plaintiffs against USA, Local 1 and Burke; and 3rd and 4th causes of action against defendants. These claims are duplicative of the defamation claim. Dinapoli is granted leave to amend. Grant without leave to amend as 6th cause of action. Dinapoli does not allege a relationship with plaintiff.

Code §3344 [no prior consent required for use of name, photograph, likeness in connection with any news, public affairs].)