IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
NOTSFEELINGS
Plaintiff,
v.
MATRIX_OC
Respondent.
Case No. RSC-CV-3569
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon. Chief Justice EnforcementBeyond
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Rule 12(a)(5) of the Ridgeway Rules of Civil Procedure, Respondent
MATRIX_OC moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Dated: January 23, 2025 Respectfully submitted:
Matrix_oc
Pro se Respondent
_______________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Misappropriation of Name or
Likeness and (2) Publicity Placing a Person in False Light. Both claims are premised on an
allegedly altered image depicting Plaintiff as a supporter of Respondent’s political campaign.
The complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted for the following reasons:
1. Neither claim meets the legal standards required under Ridgeway law or the Restatement
(Second) of Torts.
2. Both claims are constitutionally barred as they seek to restrict protected political speech
under the First Amendment.
3. Plaintiff fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish actionable harm or
damages.
ARGUMENT
I. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF
NAME OR LIKENESS
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C, misappropriation of name or likeness requires:
1. Use of the Plaintiff’s name or likeness;
2. Without consent;
3. For commercial benefit or personal gain.
A. Lack of Commercial Purpose
Plaintiff’s claim fails because the alleged use was not for commercial purposes.
Courts have consistently held that misappropriation claims require evidence that a
person’s name or likeness was used for advertising, trade, or other commercial
exploitation. See Parisi v. Sinclair, 845 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D.D.C. 2012). Here, the
alleged image alteration was used in the context of political speech, which is distinct
from commercial activity.
B. First Amendment Protections for Political Speech
Even if Plaintiff could establish the elements of misappropriation, the claim
would still fail under the First Amendment. Political speech, including parody and satire,
is afforded the highest level of protection. See Flowers v. Carville, 112 F. Supp. 2d
1202, 1210 (D. Nev. 2000). The alleged conduct—an altered image associated with a
political campaign—falls squarely within the ambit of protected public discourse.
II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR FALSE LIGHT
To establish a false light claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E,
Plaintiff must prove:
1. Respondent publicized a false statement or depiction placing Plaintiff in a
false light highly offensive to a reasonable person.
2. Respondent acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth.
A. The Alleged Depiction Is Not “Highly Offensive”
Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing that the alleged image alteration would be
objectively offensive to a reasonable person. Courts have held that false light claims
require conduct that would shock the conscience or significantly harm reputation. See
O’Bryan v. KTIV Television, 868 F. Supp. 1146, 1151 (N.D. Iowa 1994). Political
satire or parody, as alleged here, does not meet this threshold.
B. Satire and Parody Are Protected Speech
Even if the alleged depiction was unflattering, satire and parody are
well-established as protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. See Hustler
Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (political parody involving public figures is
constitutionally protected).
III. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Political speech enjoys the highest degree of protection under the First
Amendment, especially when it pertains to matters of public concern. As held in New
York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), public figures must demonstrate actual
malice to succeed on claims involving speech. Plaintiff fails to meet this standard, as the
complaint does not allege any factual basis for actual malice or reckless disregard for the
truth.
IV. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ALLEGE SUFFICIENT DAMAGES
Both claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged specific damages or harm
arising from the alleged conduct. Conclusory allegations of emotional distress are
insufficient to sustain a claim. Courts routinely dismiss claims lacking specific factual
allegations of harm. See Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent MATRIX_OC respectfully requests that this Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety pursuant to Rule 12(a)(5) of the Ridgeway Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Dated: January 23, 2025 Respectfully submitted:
Matrix_oc
Pro se Respondent
