AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 2010, Anne Taintor, Inc., without the Plaintiff's permission, began selling products featuring the Plaintiff's image alongside the caption “I’m going to be the most popular girl in rehab!” The Plaintiff became aware of this use in 2013 when her daughter purchased a flask bearing her image. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Anne Taintor and Anne Taintor, Inc., among others, asserting claims for defamation, false light, appropriation, and a violation of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA) (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Anne Taintor and Anne Taintor, Inc., dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for defamation, false light, appropriation, and a UPA violation (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the single publication rule did not apply to her claims or, if it did, a new statute of limitations period was triggered under the republication exception due to Defendants manufacturing and selling additional products with her image. Also contended she had standing to bring a UPA claim despite not purchasing any products, as she was within the chain of purchasing relationship sufficient to bring a UPA claim (para 3).
• Defendants: Contended that the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff's claims had expired under New Mexico’s single publication rule. Additionally, argued that the Plaintiff did not have standing to bring a UPA claim because she had not purchased any of the products sold by Defendants (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s defamation, false light, and appropriation claims under the single publication rule.
• Whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s UPA claim due to lack of standing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims (para 27).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jacqueline R. Medina writing the opinion, concurred by Judges M. Monica Zamora and Julie J. Vargas, held that the district court correctly applied the single publication rule to Plaintiff’s claims and that the republication exception did not apply. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact warranting the application of the republication exception. It also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s UPA claim, concluding that Plaintiff did not have standing as she did not purchase any products from Defendants. The Court reasoned that the single publication rule applies to cases involving manufactured goods and that the statute of limitations for Plaintiff’s claims began running from the time Defendants first sold the products bearing Plaintiff’s image to the public in 2010. The Court further reasoned that Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the applicability of the single publication rule and the scope of the UPA were not sufficiently developed or supported by the facts of the case (paras 4-26).