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

Summary

This amended report and recommendations addresses plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Erick & Edwin, Inc., doing business as Taco Mex Restaurant. The plaintiffs, seven professional models, allege that the defendant misappropriated and altered their images for commercial advertising and asserted claims under the Lanham Act and Maryland law. The magistrate judge recommends granting default judgment in part and denying it in part, finding sufficiently pleaded liability for Counts I–III, VI, and VIII, but not Counts IV–V, VII, and IX.

Holdings

1. A defendant's default admits well-pleaded factual allegations but does not admit legal conclusions, and a plaintiff is not automatically entitled to default judgment. The court must determine whether the admitted facts state a legitimate cause of action and support the requested relief.
2. Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations sufficiently established, by default, claims under the Lanham Act for false association and false advertising because Defendant allegedly used Plaintiffs' images in interstate commercial advertising in a manner likely to cause confusion about Plaintiffs' affiliation with or endorsement of Taco Mex and causing reputational or economic injury.
3. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded and established by default a Maryland common-law invasion-of-privacy claim for misappropriation because Defendant allegedly used their likenesses for commercial purposes without authority or consent.
4. Plaintiffs did not establish liability under the Louisiana Allen Toussaint Legacy Act because they did not allege a nexus to Louisiana or facts showing that the statutory requirements applied to them.
5. Plaintiffs did not establish liability under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act because they did not allege that they were consumers who relied on Defendant's alleged misrepresentation and suffered actual injury as a result.
6. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded and established by default a Maryland defamation claim because the alleged publication falsely portrayed them as entertainers or endorsers of Defendant's sexually charged nightclub and allegedly harmed their reputations and professional modeling careers.
7. Plaintiffs did not establish negligence because they did not adequately plead that Defendant owed them a duty of care to implement policies governing use of images and intellectual property.
8. Plaintiffs adequately pleaded and established by default an unjust-enrichment claim because they alleged that they conferred a benefit on Defendant, Defendant knew of the benefit, and retention of the benefit without payment would be inequitable.
9. Plaintiffs did not establish quantum meruit because they did not allege that they performed modeling services for Defendant under an express, implied-in-fact, or implied-in-law contract.
10. Plaintiffs established entitlement to a permanent injunction barring Defendant from using their images or likenesses in commerce in a manner likely to cause confusion about affiliation, employment, association, or endorsement, and requiring removal of the relevant social-media postings and advertisements.
11. The record supported the recommended compensatory damages awards totaling $132,500 for the claims on which Plaintiffs prevailed by default.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant's failure to respond and the well-pleaded allegations established liability under the Lanham Act's false-association and false-advertising provisions.
2. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded a Maryland common-law misappropriation claim based on commercial use of their likenesses.
3. Whether Plaintiffs established a claim under the Louisiana Allen Toussaint Legacy Act despite alleging no Louisiana nexus.
4. Whether Plaintiffs had standing and adequately pleaded injury under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
5. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded Maryland defamation based on the alleged portrayal of them as entertainers or endorsers of Defendant's sexually charged nightclub.
6. Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
7. Whether Plaintiffs established entitlement to damages and a permanent injunction on the claims supporting default judgment.

Disposition

other