De La Cruz Hernandez, Carliz v. Rimas Entertainment LLC
KLAN202401123
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Feb 14, 2025Background
- Carliz De La Cruz Hernández sued Rimas Entertainment, Bad Bunny (Martínez Ocasio), and others for unauthorized use of her recorded voice saying "Bad Bunny, baby" in songs and performances.
- The case arises from De La Cruz’s claim that she created and recorded this phrase at Bad Bunny’s request in 2015 and that it was later used without her written consent in various commercial works.
- De La Cruz brought claims for moral rights, damages, unjust enrichment, breach of image rights, breach of privacy, and unauthorized use in concerts.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 10.2(5), arguing claims weren’t sufficiently pled, were time-barred, or did not meet statutory prerequisites (e.g., originality, commercial use).
- The lower court partially granted dismissal: it dismissed most claims but allowed to proceed those related to “Dos Mil 16” for unauthorized commercial use and vicarious damages.
- Both parties appealed/adjudicated points, leading the appellate court to review errors regarding the sufficiency and viability of the respective claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protection under Law of Moral Rights of Author for phrase/voice use | Phrase and recording are original; De La Cruz owns rights to her voice/intonation | Phrase is not original/creative and is domain public/customary in genre | No protection; phrase not sufficiently original/creative |
| Claims over "Pa' Ti" song barred by prescription | Continued damages make claims timely; injury is successive | Claim is prescribed; damage known or knowable since 2016 publication | Claims are prescribed; damages not successive under law |
| Right to privacy violated by unauthorized use of voice | Use triggered independent privacy right; privacy not precluded by special image rights law | No specific factual basis pled for unique privacy expectation | Dismissed; insufficient allegations to establish privacy claim |
| Separate claim for concert use of recording | Each concert/unconsented use is a new and separate actionable event | Concert uses not independent; claims pertain to song recording usage | Dismissed; not legally distinct from recording claims |
| Action under Law of Image Rights for commercial use | Sufficient facts pled for commercial use (songs, promotions, performances for profit) | Use not shown to be commercial as statutorily required | Not dismissed; allegations of commercial use sufficient at this stage |
| Duplication of remedies under civil code and special laws | Dual causes may be pled; only one recovery ultimately prevents double recovery | If special law governs, civil code does not apply; claims are duplicative | Not dismissed; actions can be pled together but no double recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera Candela v. Universal Insurance Company, 214 DPR 99 (P.R. 2024) (summarizes pleading standards under Puerto Rico civil procedure)
- León Torres v. Rivera Lebrón, 204 DPR 20 (P.R. 2020) (sufficiency of pleadings)
- Costas Elena y otros v. Magic Sport Culinary Corp. y otros, 213 DPR 523 (P.R. 2024) (limits of dismissal at pleading stage)
- Consejo Titulares v. Gómez Estremera, 184 DPR 407 (P.R. 2012) (standards for evaluating dismissals)
- González Cabán v. JR. Seafood et al., 199 DPR 234 (P.R. 2017) (essential elements for tort/damages claims)
- Figueroa Ferrer v. E.L.A., 107 DPR 250 (P.R. 1978) (constitutional right to privacy)
- Vigoreaux Lorenzana v. Quizno’s, 173 DPR 254 (P.R. 2008) (right to image and its relationship to privacy)
- Córdova & Simonpietri v. Crown American, 112 DPR 197 (P.R. 1982) (special law overrides general; duplicative claims)