Vida Guerra, et al. v. Erick & Edwin, Inc.

Summary

This Report and Recommendations addresses Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Erick & Edwin, Inc., d/b/a Taco Mex Restaurant, arising from the alleged unauthorized use and alteration of seven professional models’ images in advertising. The magistrate judge recommends granting default judgment in part and denying it in part, finding the allegations sufficient to establish liability on the Lanham Act false association and false advertising claims, Maryland privacy and defamation claims, and unjust enrichment claim, but insufficient on certain other state-law claims. The document also discusses default procedures, statutes of limitations, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.

Holdings

1. Entry of default admits well-pleaded factual allegations but does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to default judgment; the court must determine whether those facts state a legitimate cause of action and support the requested relief.
2. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded Lanham Act claims because the alleged unauthorized use of their images in commercial advertising could create confusion or deception regarding affiliation, endorsement, or association and could injure Plaintiffs' commercial interests in reputation and sales.
3. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a Maryland common-law invasion-of-privacy claim based on appropriation of their likenesses for Defendant's commercial purposes without authority or consent.
4. Plaintiffs did not establish liability under the Allen Toussaint Legacy Act because they failed to allege a nexus to Louisiana or that the statutory domicile requirements were satisfied.
5. Plaintiffs did not adequately plead a Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim because they did not allege that they were consumers who relied on Defendant's alleged misrepresentation and suffered actual injury from that reliance.
6. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a Maryland defamation claim because the alleged publication of images falsely portraying them as entertainers or affiliates of Defendant could expose them to public scorn and injure them in their profession.
7. Plaintiffs did not adequately plead negligence because they failed to establish that Defendant owed them a duty of care to implement policies governing the use of images and likenesses.
8. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded unjust enrichment but did not adequately plead quantum meruit because they alleged no implied contract under which they performed modeling services for Defendant.
9. Plaintiffs established entitlement to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from continuing to use their images or likenesses in commerce in a manner likely to cause confusion about affiliation, association, endorsement, or promotion.
10. The record supported Plaintiffs' requested compensatory damages of $132,500 without a separate evidentiary hearing because their valuation expert provided a methodology and calculations for the fair market value of the unauthorized image uses, and Defendant forfeited its opportunity to challenge them by failing to defend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's failure to respond and entry of default entitled Plaintiffs to default judgment on their Lanham Act false-association and false-advertising claims.
2. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a Maryland common-law misappropriation-of-likeness claim.
3. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims under the Allen Toussaint Legacy Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Maryland negligence law, defamation law, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
4. Whether Plaintiffs established entitlement to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from using their images or likenesses.
5. Whether the evidentiary record supported Plaintiffs' requested compensatory damages without a damages hearing.
6. Whether Plaintiffs should receive leave to submit additional briefing concerning attorneys' fees and costs.

Disposition

other