tcphoto wrote:
She is representing herself? That is a recipe for failure in a legal proceeding. Did she think that it was a slam dunk and didn't want to pay an Attorney? Now I'm thinking that she'll get crushed by a Corporate Attorney and have no one to blame but herself.

Ya' think?

Studio36

tcphoto wrote:
She is representing herself? That is a recipe for failure in a legal proceeding. Did she think that it was a slam dunk and didn't want to pay an Attorney? Now I'm thinking that she'll get crushed by a Corporate Attorney and have no one to blame but herself.

...and judging by her comments so far, she is an incompetent attorney.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:
...and judging by her comments so far, she is an incompetent attorney.

And judging by this she even impressed the judge too - - - NOT!!!

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES by Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 12/27/16.

And it looks so far like this is the defence team
Attorney Thomas Richard Blackburn, Attorney Louis Matthew Grossman, and  Attorney Michelle Lynn Harden, all of whom are listed and have entered, individually, "NOTICE of Entry of Appearance of Counsel"

She got's a tiger by the tail there, methinks

Studio36

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:
Who represents himself has a fool for a client. Not to coin an expression, of course.

A shame. Because based on the known facts, she had a very strong case.

Eagle Rock Photographer wrote:

A shame. Because based on the known facts, she had a very strong case.

A strong case? For the facts I see, she has no case at all!

No where have I read a claim for which relief can be granted...Except for money..

There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" eating in a public place. If its a public place, why expect privacy?

What are her damages from being viewed in an "unfavorable" light? To prevail, she is going to have to prove, directly, that she suffered a loss as a result of the photo displayed. She will have to show that somehow she lost money, her job, etc. Mental anguish doesn't come in unless she can prove tangible damages.

She is already barred by the doctrine of latches in Ca. Good luck "state shopping" to avoid the doctrine. No judge will allow her to sue in each state that the picture was displayed.

This case is abysmal at beat..That is why she is pro se..No attorney with any kind of ethics wants to touch it...

If she had any basis for a claim, attorney's would have been knocking on her door for 30% of the winnings...

She has no case....Chopltie will probably settle just to make it go away...

Images by SeanK Photo wrote:

A strong case? For the facts I see, she has no case at all!

No where have I read a claim for which relief can be granted...Except for money.. should be based on violation of right of publicity and other torts.

There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" eating in a public place. If its a public place, why expect privacy? privacy is not the issue, right of publicity is.

What are her damages from being viewed in an "unfavorable" light? To prevail, she is going to have to prove, directly, that she suffered a loss as a result of the photo displayed. She will have to show that somehow she lost money, her job, etc. Mental anguish doesn't come in unless she can prove tangible damages. Wrong. Not necessary to prove injury under the law, e.g., CA CIVIL CODE 3344

She is already barred by the doctrine of latches in Ca. Good luck "state shopping" to avoid the doctrine. No judge will allow her to sue in each state that the picture was displayed. Latches maybe; state of limitations, maybe

This case is abysmal at beat..That is why she is pro se..No attorney with any kind of ethics wants to touch it... We haven't seen the actual Complaint so it is imprudent to make such a flat statement.

If she had any basis for a claim, attorney's would have been knocking on her door for 30% of the winnings... Not necessarily; see comments above.. 

She has no case....Chopltie will probably settle just to make it go away... Chipotle is moving to dump the case on various grounds and may or may not settle. 

My comments above in bold