Electra v. Dreamers Cabaret, LLC, 5:18-cv-02706

Fourteen professional models, including Carmen Electra, sued Dreamers Cabaret, LLC and 1110 Brittain Road, LLC alleging unauthorized use of plaintiffs’ images/likenesses on social media to promote a gentlemen’s club.
First Amended Complaint asserts five causes of action, including (2) negligence and (3) unjust enrichment.
Defendants moved to dismiss counts two and three under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs allege reputational harm, emotional distress, and diminution of brand value from defendants’ use of their images without permission or payment.
Defendants contend plaintiffs seek only economic/intangible losses and therefore cannot state negligence or unjust enrichment claims under Ohio law.
The court granted the motion and dismissed the negligence and unjust enrichment claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants owed a legal duty supporting a negligence claim for unauthorized use of images	Defendants should have foreseen injury from misappropriating likenesses (reputation, emotional harm, brand value)	No general duty exists to prevent intangible economic losses absent physical/tangible harm; economic-loss rule bars claim	Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to allege a legal duty or tangible physical injury, so negligence claim fails
Whether plaintiffs stated an unjust enrichment claim where defendants used plaintiffs’ images without permission	Unjust enrichment can lie where a defendant misappropriates a benefit even if no voluntary conferment occurred	Unjust enrichment requires that plaintiffs conferred a benefit on defendants (voluntary or by expectation of payment); no such conferment alleged	Dismissed — plaintiffs did not allege they conferred a benefit or expected payment, so unjust enrichment claim fails

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (factual allegations must support plausible entitlement to relief)
Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (duty in negligence depends on foreseeability)
Floor Craft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Parma Cmty. Gen. Hosp. Ass’n, 560 N.E.2d 206 (no duty to avoid purely intangible economic loss absent privity/tangible harm)
MP TotalCare Servs., Inc. v. Mattimoe, 648 F. Supp. 2d 956 (unjust enrichment requires conferment of a benefit)
Allen v. Ford Motor Co., 188 F.3d 506 (unjust enrichment is equitable remedy for conferred benefits)
Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430 (court need not accept unwarranted inferences on a motion to dismiss)
Lawyers Cooperative Publ’g Co. v. Muething, 603 N.E.2d 969 (reputation and emotional distress can be considered personal injuries in certain contexts)