1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 1
Arami Cheyenne Walker
8226 Meridian Ave.,
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone | Fax
Email
Plaintiff in pro per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ARAMI CHEYENNE WALKER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOARD OF REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant
Case No.: Number
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Arami Cheyenne Walker, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Board
of Regents, University of California, Defendant, and for cause would show this Honorable Court
as follows:
A. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Arami Cheyenne Walker is a law-abiding female adult of sound mind
and a resident of 8226 Meridian Ave., Seattle, WA 98103.
2. Defendant is the Board of Regents of the University of California located in Los
Angeles, California.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 2
B. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S. Code § 1332 (diversity of
citizenship). Plaintiff resides in the State of Washington while Defendant is a resident of the
State of California.
4. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 1391 which
provides: “A civil action may be brought in – (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” The causes of action in this Complaint
took place in Los Angeles which falls under the jurisdiction of the Central District of California.
C. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5. On May 28, 2015, Plaintiff was approached by a photographer at UCLA to take
images of her. Plaintiff agreed and the photographer, Elena Zhukova, took a few images and
asked for Plaintiff to sign a release. The release authorized uses of the images so long as they
were not defamatory. The photographer did not offer Plaintiff any money and the process took
about 5 minutes between class.
6. On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff received a text message from Stephen Spies of her
image being used for a campaign to raise money for the Covid Vaccine. On the photo there were
words that read, “UCLA is doing something about COVID,” and a click more button directed
users to a funding campaign. In the photo, Plaintiff’s eyes are half closed and she looks
potentially ill. Furthermore, she had not been on campus for approximately five years.
7. At that point, there was no vaccine or remedy and quarantine had just begun.
Plaintiff received calls from her bandmates and friends concerned that she had Covid. Plaintiff is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 3
a musician, author, and educator that for the most part interacts privately and publicly with
citizens through concerts, curated exhibitions, and teaching.
8. This photo and campaign were on Defendant’s website, Facebook and Instagram
pages. Shortly after, a woman named Amanda Hoskinson copied the Facebook campaign to
Plaintiff’s public Facebook wall and said, “You are the Poster girl of Covid.” She reported the
post as harassment multiple times to Facebook.
9. Plaintiff messaged Amanda Hoskinson multiple times to take down the post and
she refused, only sending instructions as to how to untag yourself from a post. Plaintiff was
forced to delete her Facebook account and was very upset.
10. As of April 19,2022, Plaintiff had never been diagnosed with Covid and was
vaccinated on May, 11, 2021.
11. On March 25,2020, Plaintiff sent Jennifer Wheelock, Associate Director of
Development Marketing at the UCLA External Affairs office an email stating that she would like
her images deleted and the release form terminated due to the fact that she was being bullied
online and the use of the images exceeded the scope of Plaintiff’s agreement.
12. On March 25, 2020 Jennifer Wheelock replied that Plaintiff’s images were
deleted and removed from the website and that her contract was terminated. She apologized and
promised Plaintiff that her images would not be used again. This email strand was forwarded on
March 25, 2020 to Shilo Munk, Chief of Staff for Strategic communications. Exhibit 2.
13. Plaintiff decided not to file a complaint because this remedy felt reassuring that
her image was removed and her release was terminated.
14. On March 12,2022, two years after this remedy, Plaintiff received an Instagram
message from Paige Macmilan that her image was on a large-scale printed banner on the Arthur
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 4
Ashe Building for student health. The photo was used for a “Welcome New Students” campaign
for incoming students. The image was being used to have students sign up for medical and
health appointments at the UCLA student health center without Plaintiff’s permission and was a
full faced image of Plaintiff and another student. This same banner was used in 2015 and was
placed in the central part of UCLA near the Bruin Bear visited by approximately 50,000 to
80,000 people a day.
15. On March 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent Shilo Munk, Chief of Staff for Strategic
Communication an email stating that her image was still in use on campus and she need it to be
removed.
16. On March 18, 2022, Shilo Munk presented Plaintiff with the release form from
2015 and stated that it was the reason Plaintiff’s image was still in use, but because of her
complaint they would remove Plaintiff’s images from their campus and website and discontinue
using them. Plaintiff explained to Shilo Munk that to her knowledge, the release form and
images associated with it were terminated in 2020 and that she would like to be compensated for
the continued use of her image.
17. To Plaintiff’s knowledge, since 2015, these images have been used on large scale
posters, online funding campaigns, and printed materials such as brochures. Furthermore, they
have been used to raise money for health institutions and to advertise for the student health
center.
18. Due to the bullying and the processing of this issue in 2020 and again in 2022,
Plaintiff has spoken to a therapist and overcame moments of sadness, embarrassment, anxiety,
and depression.
19. On March 18, 2022 Plaintiff was feeling very upset about having to ask people to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 5
locate the image, look at the images, and process being bullied online.
20. Plaintiff began to think about who could have selected the image and remembered
that in Spring 2012 of her freshman year at UCLA, her acting fundamentals teacher assigned
Plaintiff and another African American female a monologue in which he asked to have sex with
them for money and had them call him sexual names. The other students used this to bully
Plaintiff and the other student. Plaintiff was eighteen at the time.
21. Plaintiff had repressed this memory and during the email communication with the
Shilo Munk and thinking about who could have done this, Plaintiff let her know this occurred
and reported it to Jessica Corona at the Title XI department.
22. In the Winter Quarter of my freshman year, Plaintiff began speaking to a therapist
at UCLA about negative experiences she had sexually and how it affected her self-esteem and
sexuality. After this conversation, Plaintiff was able to revisit the subject in my current self-
work.
23. Plaintiff asked Shilo Munk if she had the email from March 2020 in which
Jennifer Wheelock stated that she had removed Plaintiff’s images, terminated the release form,
and that UCLA would not use the images again.
24. On April 14, 2022 Shilo Munk responded with the conversation between Plaintiff
and Jennifer Wheelock in 2020.
D. CAUSES OF ACTION
i. Appropriation
25. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though
set out in full herein.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 6
26. California Civil Code Section 3344 stipulates: “Any person who knowingly uses
another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner on or in products,
merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of
products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person’s prior consent, or, in the case of a
minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained
by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this
section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an
amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered
by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that
are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In
establishing such profits, the injured party or parties are required to prove his or her deductible
expenses. Punitive damages may also be awarded to the injured party or parties. The prevailing
party in any action under this section shall also be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.”
27. Defendant knowingly used Plaintiff’s image for commercial purposes such as
large scale posters, online funding campaigns, and printed materials such as brochures. When
Plaintiff realized that the first time, she contacted Defendant through its agents/employees and
expressed that she no longer wanted Defendant to continue using her image. In good faith that
Defendant would cease the use of her image, Plaintiff did not file a complaint anywhere.
28. Two years after Defendant through its representative promised not to use
Plaintiff’s image again, Defendant used one of the banners that had been used back in 2020. The
banner was used to welcome new students and encourage them to sign up for medical and health
appointments in campus. That was backtracking on the agreement that Defendant’s release was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 7
terminated and that Defendant would no longer use Plaintiff’s image anywhere without her
consent.
29. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has been portrayed in bad light and
bullied on Facebook by being described as the poster girl for Covid-19 by a Facebook user.
When Plaintiff contacted the user to delete the post, she refused to do so. Plaintiff became
devastated and decided to deactivate her account. Plaintiff was also bullied on campus. She has
had to seek therapeutic help to deal with the negative toll the bullying has taken on her mental
health.
30. At all times when Plaintiff contacted Defendant’s representatives, none of them
denied the fact that Defendant had used Plaintiff’s image without her consent.
31. In accordance with the above provision of law, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for
mental anguish and suffering experienced as a result of Defendant’s acts and/or omissions, and
any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use of Plaintiff’s image.
ii. Breach of Contract
32. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though
set out in full herein.
33. The elements of a claim for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract,
(2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant and (4) damage to plaintiff as a
result of defendant’s breach. See Great American Insurance Co. v. MIVCO Packing Co.,
LLC, No. 08-05454, 2009 WL 942390, *6 (N.D.Cal. April 6, 2009) (citing Amelco Electric v.
City of Thousand Oaks, 27 Cal.4th 228, 115 Cal. Rptr.2d 900, 38 P.3d 1120 (Cal.2002)).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 8
34. There exists a model release executed by Plaintiff and Elena Zhukova in the
presence of Anastasiia Sapon on May 28, 2015. Defendant is one of the assigns.
35. Plaintiff fulfilled all her obligations in the model release. Defendant used
Plaintiff’s image in a manner that portrayed her in bad light as the “poster girl” for Covid-19 as
described by others. Plaintiff expressed to Defendant’s representative that she did not like the
manner in which her image was being used by the university.
36. The representative promised Plaintiff that her image would not be used by the
university again. She also promised that the model release would be terminated.
37. The use of Plaintiff’s image during the welcoming campaign in 2022 was contrary
to the model release which was terminated in 2020, and a breach of the model release.
38. Defendant is liable for breach of contract and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.
iii. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
39. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as though
set out in full herein.
40. A cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that a
plaintiff show "(1) serious emotional distress, (2) actually and proximately caused by (3)
wrongful conduct (4) by a defendant who should have foreseen that the conduct would cause
such distress." Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir.2004).
41. Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and emotional distress from the use of her image
on Covid-19 campaign materials. That portrayed her as a Covid-19 “poster girl” which led to
Plaintiff being suspected of having Covid-19 by the people who saw the materials. Plaintiff was
even bullied, and had to see a therapist to help her stabilize her mental health.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 9
42. The acts and/or omissions by Defendant are wrongful. When Plaintiff brought her
concerns to Defendant’s representative the first time, the representative promised her that her
image would no longer be used by the university without her express consent.
43. Defendant should have foreseen that its conduct would cause Plaintiff emotional
distress. When Plaintiff brought the issue to Defendant’s representative the first time, she
highlighted the damage she had suffered. However, Defendant continued to use Plaintiff’s image
without her consent, knowing very well the damage that Plaintiff initially suffered as a result of
its actions and/or omissions.
E. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests
this Honorable Court to grant her the following reliefs:
a. GRANT judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendant as to all causes of
action;
b. TERMINATE the model release;
c. ISSUE an Order of Specific Performance compelling Defendant to delete all
images associated with the photoshoot done on May 28, 2015;
d. ISSUE an Order of Specific Performance compelling Defendant to compensate
Plaintiff for the unauthorized use of her images for a period spanning 7 years as well as
advertising health and medical appointments on a medical facility;
e. AWARD Plaintiff damages for breach of contract, negligent infliction of
emotional distress as well as all damages stipulated in California Civil Code Section 3344;
f. AWARD Plaintiff special damages, including therapy costs in the sum of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – 10
$____________; and
g. ISSUE a DECLARATION that Plaintiff shall retain her privileges as an alumni
and retain articles written about her work during and after her time at UCLA
Dated this _____ day of May, 2022.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Arami Cheyenne Walker,
Plaintiff in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )