Lane v. Mra Holdings, LLC

• Citation: 242 F.Supp.2d 1205
• Decision Date: 26 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 6:01-CV-1493-Orl-22KRS.,6:01-CV-1493-Orl-22KRS.
• Parties: Veronica LANE, Plaintiff, v. MRA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a MRA Video; Mantra Films, Inc.; AMX Productions, LLC; Ventura Distribution, Inc.; and Woodholly Productions, Inc. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

242 F.Supp.2d 1205

Veronica LANE, Plaintiff, v. MRA HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a MRA Video; Mantra Films, Inc.; AMX Productions, LLC; Ventura Distribution, Inc.; and Woodholly Productions, Inc. Defendants.

No. 6:01-CV-1493-Orl-22KRS.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

November 26, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Joseph Daniel Tessitore, Motes & Carr, P.A, Orlando, FL, for Veronica Lane.

Thomas R. Julin, D. Patricia Wallace, Hunton & Williams, Miami, FL, David Charles Willis, David Leonard Evans, Mateer & Harbert, P.A, Orlando, FL, David A. Brooks, Jonathan B. Cole, Nemecek & Cole, A.P.C, Sherman Oaks, CA, for MRA Holdings, LLC, dba, MRA Video, Mantra Films, Inc., AMX Productions, LLC, Ventura Distribution, Inc., Woodholly Productions, Inc.

ORDER

CONWAY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause comes before the Court on Defendants, MRA Holding, LLC d/b/a MRA Video's ("MRA") and Ventura Distribution, Inc.'s ("Ventura"), Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 48), filed on July 8, 2002, to which the Plaintiff, Veronica Lane ("Lane") responded to (Doc. No. 61) on July 29, 2002; Defendant, Point.360 d/b/a Woodholly Productions, Inc.'s ("Woodholly"), Dispositive Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54), filed on July 17, 2002, to which Lane responded to (Doc. No. 60) on July 29, 2002; Defendant, Mantra Films, Inc.'s ("Mantra Films"), Dispositive Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 72), filed on August 12, 2002, to which Lane responded to (Doc. No. 77) on August 19, 2002; Defendant, AMX Productions, LLC's ("AMX"), Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count VII of the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 90), filed on September 30, 2002, to which Lane responded to (Doc. No. 93) on October 2, 2002; and Lane's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Capacity to Consent and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc No. 62), filed on July 29, 2002, to which MRA, Ventura, Woodholly, and Mantra responded to (Doc. No. 76) on August 15, 2002. Lane's eight count Amended Complaint alleges unauthorized publication in violation of Fla. Stat. § 540.08 against MRA (Count I); Mantra (Count IV); Ventura (Count V); Woodholly (Count VI); and AMX (Count VII), common law invasion of privacy for commercial misappropriation of likeness against MRA (Count II), false light invasion of privacy against MRA (Count III), and common law fraud against AMX (Count VIII). Having reviewed the motions and memoranda, this Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment as to Counts I through VII of the Complaint, and DNIES Lane's Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Capacity to Consent. Accordingly, only the fraud Count (Count VIII) asserted against Defendant, AMX, remains.

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiff, Veronica Lane, is a resident of Orange County, Florida, and at all times herein, was under the age of eighteen years.¹ Defendant, MRA, edits and assembles video footage depicting young women exposing themselves on beaches, along streets, in bars, and in other public places.² Defendant, Ventura, has a distribution agreement with MRA, allowing Ventura to purchase and sell its videos ³ Defendant, Woodholly, provides MRA with equipment and personnel to digitize videotapes and to edit digitized images that appear in MRA's videos.⁴ Defendant, Mantra, markets MRA video products, and produces the advertising for MRA's products.⁵ Defendant, AMX films or acquires the film used by MRA in its video products.⁶

On or about September 3rd, 4th, or 5th, of 1999, the Plaintiff, Veronica Lane, operated an automobile in Panama City Beach, Florida.⁷ While Lane operated her automobile, she and a female passenger (Lane's companion) who was sitting in the front passenger seat of Lane's car, were approached by individuals who were in possession of a video camera.⁸ The individuals requested that Lane, along with her companion, expose themselves before the video camera in exchange for beaded necklaces.⁹ Lane and her companion agreed.¹⁰

Before any of the individuals began removing their clothes, Lane's companion indicated her familiarity with bartering nude video opportunities for beads, by stating that two years ago she had been photographed at Mardi Gras, and that her photograph had been published in Maxim, a popular men's magazine that features photographs of women.¹¹ Lane's companion then lifted up her shirt, exposing her breasts to the video camera.

Shortly after this interaction, a police officer from off camera stated through a bullhorn: "Close the hatch and get your legs inside." Lane and her companion were initially startled, but quickly resumed their dealings with the cameraman.

Lane then stated "Hi Baby!" ¹² She continued, "Hi Baby! I don't need no beads, I got plenty of `em, well maybe." She then removed her shoulder belt and stated, "I want some I want ... I want [beads]." Lane subsequently pulled down her tube top to reveal her breasts in return for the beads she requested.

When Lane finished exposing her breasts, the cameraman urged her and her companion to reveal their vaginas, giving him what was referred to as a "bush shot." ¹³ In response, both Lane and her companion stated that they did not have any "bush," implying that they shaved their vaginas. Nevertheless, Lane and her companion both began to unzip their pants, and Lane's companion exposed a portion of her vagina, after Lane assisted her by removing a belt that was obstructing the cameraman's view.¹⁴ Once Lane's companion finished revealing herself, Lane zipped up her pants without exposing any portion of her vagina, stating "[h]e wants us to go." ¹⁵ She then put her car in gear, and drove off.¹⁶

After this incident, the Defendants acquired, edited, assembled, produced, and distributed clips of Lane exposing her breasts in Girls Gone Wild,¹⁷ a video that depicts a variety of young women exposing their buttocks and genitals in public places.¹⁸ In addition, Mantra Films marketed Girls Gone Wild through paid television commercials containing two and three second censored clips of Lane exposing her breasts.¹⁹ The video that Lane appeared in was marketed with another Girls Gone Wild video captioned Sexy Sorority Sweethearts.²⁰ Sexy Sorority Sweethearts contains much more explicit sexual material than the Girls Gone Wild video in which Lane appeared, including cunnilingus.²¹

The Girls Gone Wild commercials and video containing Lane's image surprised Lane because she was under the impression that the cameraman who approached her was intending to make a film for his own personal use.²² In fact, according to Lane, the cameraman represented to her that he would not show the video to anyone who was not present at that time.²³ Lane further contends that the cameraman did not disclose that he intended to use the film for a commercial purpose, that the film would be transferred or sold to a third party for use in a commercial product, or that her image and likeness would be used in a video containing depictions of women exposing their breast, buttocks, genital areas, and engaging in topless or other erotic dancing in public.²⁴ According to Lane, she acted in reliance on these representations made to her, and had she known that the video in question was to become part of Girls Gone Wild she would not have acted as she did.²⁵

On account of the Girls Gone Wild advertisements and video, Lane filed a Complaint against MRA in Florida state court on or about November 1, 2001.²⁶ Based on diversity of citizenship, MRA removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.²⁷ Following the removal, Lane filed a motion to amend her Complaint to add four additional Defendants involved in the production and distribution of Girls Gone Wild.²⁸ This Court granted that motion on May 16, 2002²⁹, and on the same day Lane filed an Amended Complaint.³⁰

The first three counts of Lane's Amended Complaint state claims against MRA for unauthorized publication in violation of Fla. Stat. § 540.08 (Count I), common law invasion of privacy for commercial misappropriation of likeness (Count II), and false light invasion of privacy (Count III).³¹ Counts IV, V, and VI assert claims for unauthorized publication in violation of Fla. Stat. § 540.08 against Mantra (Count IV), Ventura Distribution (Count V), Woodholly Productions (Count VI), and AMX (Count VII).³² Count VIII of Lane's Amended Complaint alleges that AMX and/or its agents committed fraud by representing that they were intending to film young ladies for their own personal use and that no one other than those present at the time of the filming would see any videotape made of the Plaintiff.³³

All five of the Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted under Fla. Stat. § 540.08.³⁴ Likewise, MRA has moved for summary judgment on the claims of common law invasion of privacy for commercial misappropriation of likeness and false light invasion of privacy ³⁵

Finally, Lane has moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether or not she had the capacity to consent to the recording and wide spread distribution of her image.³⁶ The issue of whether the facts supporting the fraud Count against AMX (Count VIII) present a genuine issue of material fact is currently not before this Court.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material if it is one that might affect the outcome of the case. See id. The party seeking summary judgment bears the...