Arami Cheyenne Walker

8226 Meridian Avenue

Seattle, WA 98103


Plaintiff in pro per























Case No.: 23STCV04603


Assigned for all purposes to:

Hon. Serena R. Murillo




DATE:     September 11, 2023

TIME:     08:30am

DEPT.:    31

RESERVATION ID:   408958252187


TRIAL DATE:          None Set

ACTION FILED:      03/02/23



NOW COMES Arami Cheyenne Walker, Plaintiff, and files this Response to the Regents’Reply Memorandum in Support of Demurrer to Complaint, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:


  2. The principle of vicarious liability, as enshrined in California Civil Code Section 815.2(a), serves as a cornerstone in the realm of legal accountability, particularly in cases involving public entities and their employees.
  3. Vicarious liability, often referred to as “respondeat superior,” is a legal doctrine that holds employers responsible for the wrongful acts or omissions committed by their employees while acting within the scope of their employment. The rationale behind this doctrine is rooted in the idea that the employer benefits from the work of its employees and should, therefore, also bear the burden of their actions when conducted in the course of their employment. California Civil Code Section 815.2(a) further codifies this principle, making public entities accountable for the consequences of their employees’ actions.
  4. A critical factor in assessing vicarious liability is determining whether the employee’s actions were within the scope of their employment. The scope of employment encompasses activities that are undertaken to fulfill the employer’s objectives and further its interests. However, the concept is not limited to actions explicitly instructed by the employer; it also includes actions that are reasonably incidental to the employment.
  5. The actions of the Defendant’s social media team were within the scope of their employment. The team’s involvement in selecting images for campaigns and disseminating them on social media aligns with the objective of promoting the Defendant’s image and activities. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s pursuit of records related to the image selection process serves as an attempt to shed light on whether the team’s actions were in alignment with the scope of their employment.
  6. Central to the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant is the unauthorized utilization of her image in COVID-19 related campaigns. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s actions have caused her emotional distress, prompting her to seek legal recourse grounded in the doctrine of vicarious liability, as expounded in Section 815.2(a). The core of the Plaintiff’s argument resides in her assertion that the social media team, by endorsing campaigns that employed her image without obtaining consent, was effectively operating within the confines of their employment responsibilities.
  7. The Plaintiff’s position is further fortified by her proactive endeavors to attain transparency concerning the selection process behind her image’s inclusion in the campaigns. Her tenacious pursuit of this crucial information through formal record requests serves to underscore her unwavering commitment to uncovering the truth and compelling the Defendant to assume responsibility.
  8. Despite her persistent efforts, the Defendant has yet to furnish any documentation relevant to the process of image selection. This glaring absence of transparency raises compelling questions regarding the intentions and motivations that underpin the utilization of the Plaintiff’s image, thereby providing additional weight to the Plaintiff’s assertions of emotional distress.
  9. The Defendant is intentionally delaying to provide the Plaintiff with the records she provided. In an email, agents of the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that they would be conducting a 6.5 months search and review despite the fact that the Plaintiff sent the Defendant all names, titles, timeline and campaign on May 12, 2023.
  10. Ultimately, the essence of vicarious liability extends beyond mere legalities; it embodies the concept of fairness, ensuring that the benefits reaped by an entity from its employees’ actions are coupled with a responsibility to address the consequences of those actions.


  2. The provisions outlined in Cal. Evid. Code § 1280 to emphasize the admissibility of certain writings, specifically emails, as official records. These records are pivotal in substantiating her claims against the Defendant.
  3. Evid. Code § 1280 outlines an exception to the hearsay rule pertaining to the admissibility of writings that serve as records of acts, conditions, or events. In the Plaintiff’s case, the writings in question are emails that document the communication and decision-making process within the Defendant’s organization.
  4. The emails that the Plaintiff seeks to introduce as evidence fulfill the conditions stipulated in Cal. Evid. Code § 1280. Firstly, the writings were made by public employees within the scope of their duties. In this instance, the communications originated from members of the Defendant’s social media team, who were directly involved in the campaigns related to the Plaintiff’s image. This establishes a clear nexus between the writings and the employees’ official roles.
  5. Secondly, the writings were made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event in question. The emails in question correspond to the timeline during which the campaigns featuring the Plaintiff’s image were conceptualized, developed, and executed. This temporal alignment underscores the immediate relevance of the writings to the events under scrutiny.
  6. Finally, the sources of information, as well as the method and time of preparation of these writings, collectively indicate their trustworthiness. The emails, being internal communications within the Defendant’s organization, inherently possess an element of reliability. Their contents reflect the decision-making process, discussions, and considerations undertaken by the social media team, all of which contribute to the credibility and trustworthiness of the records.
  7. By invoking the provisions of Cal. Evid. Code § 1280, the Plaintiff not only seeks to ensure the admissibility of the emails as official records but also to enhance the strength of her case. These writings serve as a window into the Defendant’s actions, motivations, and intentions regarding the campaigns featuring the Plaintiff’s image. As official records, they provide an authoritative account of the decision-making process, internal discussions, and potential foreseeability of emotional distress caused to the Plaintiff.


  2. Civ. Code § 1649 delineates the approach to be taken when the terms of a promise are ambiguous or uncertain. This section dictates that such terms should be understood in the manner in which the promisor believed, at the time of making the promise, that the promisee comprehended it.
  3. Applying this provision to the Plaintiff’s case sheds light on the importance of interpreting contractual terms and intentions favorably towards her position.
  4. Civ. Code § 1649 establishes a framework for interpreting ambiguous terms. The essence of this provision lies in the principle that when a promise is made, and its terms are not clearly defined, it should be understood based on the understanding that the promisor believed the promisee held at the time of entering the agreement. This provision aims to ensure that contractual relationships are grounded in a mutual understanding of the terms, thereby fostering clarity and preventing potential disputes.
  5. In the context of the Plaintiff’s case, the utilization of Cal. Civ. Code § 1649 assumes paramount importance. The Plaintiff asserts that her image was used without consent in campaigns associated with COVID-19, leading to emotional distress and infringement on her rights. Central to her argument is the contention that the Defendant’s actions breached the terms of their implied understanding, causing harm and distress that the Defendant may not have foreseen.
  6. By invoking Cal. Civ. Code § 1649, the Plaintiff aims to highlight the significance of the Defendant’s intentions at the time of utilizing her image. The provision demands that the terms of the Defendant’s promise be understood in the manner the Defendant believed she comprehended them.
  7. This provision reinforces the Plaintiff’s claims by emphasizing the importance of interpreting promises in a manner that upholds the original understanding of the parties involved. By arguing that the Defendant’s actions resulted in emotional distress, the Plaintiff contends that the use of her image deviated from the initial understanding she had at the time of its usage.
  8. By invoking Cal. Civ. Code § 1649, the Plaintiff seeks to assert that if there was any ambiguity or uncertainty in the terms surrounding the use of her image, those terms should be interpreted in the sense that the Defendant believed she understood them.
  9. Civ. Code § 1649 is not only a provision of legal interpretation but also a principle that underscores the essence of fairness in contractual relationships. Its application ensures that parties are held accountable for their actions in alignment with the promises they believed the other party understood. In the Plaintiff’s case, invoking this provision aims to ensure that the Defendant’s actions are evaluated in light of their understanding of the implied promises, thereby maintaining fairness and justice in these proceedings.


  2. The cornerstone of any contract often rests on principles of trust, consent, and adherence to agreements. The Plaintiff’s case against the Defendant is no exception, as it hinges on the alleged misuse of a model release—a document that should have symbolized mutual understanding and consent.
  3. A model release serves as a safeguard to ensure that the subject’s rights are respected, and their consent is obtained before their image is disseminated.
  4. At the heart of the Plaintiff’s claim is the misuse of the model release. When the Plaintiff consented to the use of her image through the model release, it carried with it certain promises and understandings. This consent was likely based on specific purposes articulated in the release—purposes that were agreed upon and understood by both parties. The Defendant’s subsequent use of her image exceeded the boundaries stipulated in the release, thereby violating the implicit trust inherent in such agreements.
  5. Misusing a model release fundamentally violates the trust between the model and the entity seeking to use their image. The model release operates under the presumption that the images will be used in accordance with the agreed-upon terms. Deviating from these terms not only infringes upon the model’s rights but also undermines the very foundation of informed and voluntary consent.
  6. The Plaintiff’s case draws attention to the fact that her trust was betrayed when her image was used beyond the intended purpose, leading to emotional distress and undermining the sanctity of the original agreement.
  7. The model release is not a mere formality; it is a document that safeguards the individual’s right to control the use of their likeness. Misusing the model release results in an infringement on the personal rights of the model—rights that should not be taken lightly.
  8. The Defendant’s actions, by exceeding the scope of the release, encroached upon her right to control her image and the contexts in which it was used. This infringement triggers not only emotional distress but also necessitates legal intervention to restore the balance of rights.
  9. Misusing a model release not only breaches the promise of consent and intention but also tarnishes the integrity of the relationship between the model and the entity using their likeness. By invoking the principle of trust and respect for personal rights, the Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for the breach of this foundational agreement.


  2. Plaintiff’s image was utilized without consent in campaigns associated with COVID-19, campaigns that she asserts were of a commercial nature. These campaigns, designed to generate funds or financial support, fall squarely within the realm of commercial endeavors. The campaigns linked to COVID-19 were undoubtedly designed to attract financial contributions or support, making them quintessentially commercial in nature.
  3. Intellectual property rights empower individuals to control the use and dissemination of their creative works, including images. The unauthorized use of such intellectual property infringes upon these rights and can have far-reaching consequences, both emotionally and financially.
  4. The Plaintiff’s image was utilized as a means to attract attention and funds, effectively commodifying her likeness without her consent. This raises crucial questions about the boundaries of commercial utilization and the rights of individuals to safeguard their image from exploitation.
  5. The commercialization of an individual’s image introduces a complex interplay of interests and ethics. While commercial campaigns serve as vehicles for generating funds and support, they also run the risk of reducing personal identities to mere commodities, devoid of individual agency.
  6. The Plaintiff’s case invites a reflection on the ethical dimensions of using her image for commercial gains without her consent. The perceived endorsement implied by the association of her image with campaigns creates a potential distortion of her personal identity and undermines her right to control her image’s use.
  7. One of the pivotal facets of the Plaintiff’s claim is the emotional distress she suffered as a result of her image being used in campaigns without her consent. This distress is exacerbated by the commercial nature of the campaigns, as it underscores not only the infringement of her rights but also the undue exploitation of her image for financial gain.
  8. The psychological toll inflicted by such actions resonates deeply, as the Plaintiff contends that she was portrayed as the “PosterGirl of Covid” in a campaign that propagated a false narrative for financial motives. This exacerbation of emotional distress underscores the profound implications of commercialization on personal well-being.
  9. The commercialization of an individual’s image can erode the sense of control and autonomy they possess over their own narrative. By exploiting images for financial gain without consent, the commercial nature of campaigns wrests control from the individual, making them a passive player in the narrative that unfolds. In the Plaintiff’s case, the unauthorized use of her image not only transgressed her intellectual property rights but also undermined her capacity to shape her own identity and the associations tied to it.


  2. The unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s image in campaigns associated with COVID-19 has ignited a maelstrom of emotional turmoil within her. The very image that represents her essence has been manipulated and propagated without her consent, leading to feelings of violation, humiliation, and despair. These emotions are not ephemeral; they linger, casting a shadow over her mental well-being, personal relationships, and overall quality of life.
  3. Equally significant is the potential harm inflicted upon the Plaintiff’s reputation. The Defendant’s actions of associating the Plaintiff’s image with COVID-19 without her consent have the potential to tarnish her reputation in the eyes of her peers, acquaintances, and the public at large.
  4. Emotional distress stemming from the unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s image has a direct and detrimental impact on her reputation. The distress she experiences negatively impacts her interactions, affects her self-esteem, and radiates through her personal and professional circles. As her emotional distress becomes apparent, the reputation she has painstakingly built over the years stands at risk of erosion.
  5. The Plaintiff’s claims of emotional distress and reputation cannot be dismissed as inconsequential. The very foundation of these claims rests upon principles of respect for personal autonomy, protection of mental well-being, and safeguarding one’s standing in society. The Plaintiff’s ordeal goes beyond mere inconvenience; it strikes at the heart of her identity and sense of self-worth. To neglect the weight of emotional distress and reputational harm would be to disregard the fundamental principles that underpin human dignity.



REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to DISMISS the Regents’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.


Dated this ____ day of September, 2023.





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 )