Summary
This United States District Court order grants defendants' motions to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint alleging misappropriation of likeness under Washington’s Personality Rights Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court finds that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that her stage name or general characteristics were uniquely appropriated in an Amazon Prime Day commercial featuring Megan Thee Stallion. Additionally, the court determines that the alleged conduct does not rise to the level of extreme outrageousness required for an IIED claim. Concluding that further amendment would be futile, the court dismisses all claims with prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Johnson stated a claim under Washington's Personality Rights Act.
- Whether Johnson stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Whether the court should grant leave to amend the complaint.
Holdings
- Johnson fails to state a claim for misappropriation of likeness under the Washington Personality Rights Act and the claim is dismissed.
- Johnson fails to state an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and the claim is dismissed.
- Leave to amend is denied because the deficiencies are substantive and cannot be cured by amendment; further amendment would be futile.
Key quotations
“Courts will grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss only if the complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”” (at 12)
“A claim for IIED requires proof of three elements: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and (3) actual result to plaintiff of severe emotional distress.” (at 15)
Factual background
Sheri Johnson, a pro se plaintiff who performs under the name "HotPink," alleged that Amazon and Megan Pete used her likeness and stage name in an Amazon Prime Day commercial, causing misappropriation of her persona and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an original complaint on July 18, 2024 and amended it twice, the latest on October 16, 2024. Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the claims with prejudice.