Jaime Faith Edmondson v. Velvet Lifestyles, LLC, 43 F.4th 1153

Miami Velvet, a private swingers’ nightclub, used unauthorized photographs of 32 professional models/actresses in online advertisements that implied affiliation or endorsement.
Velvet Lifestyles, LLC operated Miami Velvet; Yorkies was the managing member of Velvet Lifestyles; Joy (Mrs.) Dorfman was president/manager of both entities and received management fees.
Plaintiffs sued Velvet Lifestyles, Yorkies, and Mrs. Dorfman under the Lanham Act for false advertising/false endorsement, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and a jury trial.
The district court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment on liability against all three defendants (treating them collectively), reserved damages for trial, and a jury awarded damages against each defendant.
Yorkies and Mrs. Dorfman appealed, arguing the record did not show either (1) Yorkies directly participated in the Lanham Act violations or (2) Mrs. Dorfman individually was a "moving force" causing the violations; the Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment as to Yorkies and Mrs. Dorfman and vacated their damages awards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yorkies was liable under the Lanham Act	Yorkies is liable because it was the managing member of Velvet Lifestyles and linked to the infringing ads	Yorkies is a distinct entity and plaintiffs produced no evidence that Yorkies created, controlled, or used the ads	Yorkies is a separate entity; plaintiffs failed to show direct liability or pierce the corporate veil — summary judgment against Yorkies reversed
Whether Mrs. Dorfman is individually liable under the Lanham Act	Mrs. Dorfman is liable because she was manager/president and received fees from entities that ran the ads	Plaintiffs produced no evidence she "actively and knowingly" caused or was the moving force behind the infringing ads	Individual liability requires active, knowing, moving-force participation; plaintiffs failed to meet that standard — summary judgment against Mrs. Dorfman reversed
Whether the corporate veil should be pierced to attribute Velvet Lifestyles’ conduct to Yorkies	Plaintiffs argued the entities were functionally the same and thus culpable	Defendants argued the entities are legally distinct and plaintiffs did not prove alter-ego or fraud under Florida law	Veil-piercing was not argued or proved at summary judgment; Florida law presumes corporate separateness and plaintiffs failed to show the necessary misconduct

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary-judgment standard; judge may not weigh evidence; genuine issue for jury)
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (moving party must meet initial burden under Rule 56)
Herzog v. Castle Rock Ent., 193 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 1999) (if movant fails initial Rule 56 burden, non-movant need not produce opposing evidence)
Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Fla., 931 F.2d 1472 (11th Cir. 1991) (individual Lanham Act liability requires active, knowing, moving-force participation)
Babbit Elecs., Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 1994) (corporate officer personally liable when directing/controlling/ratifying infringing activity)
Molinos Valle Del Cibao v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (Florida law presumes corporate separateness; veil piercing requires showing domination, misuse, and injury)
Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1984) (Florida courts reluctant to pierce corporate veil; requires notice and showing of injustice)
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in district court generally not considered on appeal)