Cheryl Ruffin-Steinback, Individually and in Her Capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Davis E. Ruffin, P/k/a David Ruffin Nedra Ruffin Kimberly Bogan David Ruffin, Jr. Estate of Earline Ruffin Josephine Miles Rose Franklin v. Suzanne Depasse Depasse Entertainment Otis Williams, "Temptations" Shelly Burger National Broadcasting Company, Inc. David Picker Hallmark Entertainment, Individuals and Corporations, Jointly and Severally
Docket: 00-1260
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; September 28, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Plaintiffs, including Cheryl Ruffin-Steinback and family members of Davis E. Ruffin, appeal the dismissal of their tort claims against various defendants, including NBC and dePasse Entertainment, stemming from a mini-series about the Temptations aired by NBC in November 1998. The plaintiffs assert state law claims for violation of the right of publicity, unjust enrichment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The mini-series, based on a novel by Otis Williams, depicted the lives of the Temptations and utilized actor portrayals of the plaintiffs without their permission, with only Williams receiving compensation. The district court dismissed the claims, and the appeals focus on whether the dismissal was appropriate concerning the rights of publicity, unjust enrichment, defamation (specifically regarding Earline Ruffin), and emotional distress claims. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, concluding that the claims were insufficient as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs filed three complaints in Michigan state court, which were subsequently removed to federal court by the defendants. The Ruffins' complaint centers on the portrayal of David Ruffin's death in a mini-series, alleging inaccuracies such as his beaten body being depicted as unclaimed in a morgue for a week; they assert he was transported to the hospital by limousine and claimed by a family member within days. The Ruffin children criticize the series for misrepresenting David as single and childless, contrasting with other Temptations members shown with families. Earline Ruffin claims she was wrongly depicted as a prostitute due to a storyline that suggested David was given to a pimp by his mother. Rose Franklin disputes the mini-series portrayal of her son Melvin, asserting he died peacefully in his sleep, not confined to a wheelchair. Josephine Miles objects to the depiction of her ex-husband Otis Williams as a superior father and husband, feeling it undermines her contributions to raising their son. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), leading to hearings where both parties submitted evidence. The district court ruled on some claims, dismissing them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granting summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court reviews these dismissals de novo, accepting the complaint's well-pleaded allegations as true and construing them favorably to the plaintiffs. In this diversity action, Michigan law was applied to all claims except the defamation claim by Earline Ruffin. The right of publicity is defined as the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s name or likeness for commercial gain, aimed at protecting celebrities' interests in controlling and profiting from their identities.
The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of publicity rights violations, stating that depicting a person's life story without permission does not violate Michigan law. At the time, the Michigan Supreme Court had not addressed this issue, and lower courts had only acknowledged it as a recognized invasion of privacy. The court referenced the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, which clarifies that identity use for trade typically excludes news reporting, commentary, and entertainment. The ruling also cited Matthews v. Wozencraft, where a man's claim of misappropriation of his likeness was rejected, emphasizing that a mere narrative of life lacks the value associated with a name or likeness. A similar claim in Seale v. Gramercy Pictures was also denied. Plaintiffs contended that their identities were exploited as mere props to enhance Otis Williams’s story, rather than just their life stories being depicted. They argued for relief based on Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc., claiming the district court misinterpreted their case. Defendants countered that the First Amendment protects the mini-series, as it pertains to public interest and is not a commercial advertisement. They asserted that the plaintiffs' claims lack legal support and that the use of fictionalized likenesses in a protected work does not warrant publicity rights claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' rights of publicity were not violated.
Plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment were dismissed by the district court as duplicative of their right of publicity claims, with the court referencing its prior dismissal reasons for those claims. The plaintiffs did not differentiate the claims but instead reiterated their arguments against the dismissal of the right of publicity claims. A review of the complaints confirms that both claims are indeed duplicative, as seen in the Ruffin plaintiffs' use of the phrase "enrich themselves unjustifiably." The court found no error in the dismissal of either claim.
Only Earline Ruffin's defamation claim was appealed, which stemmed from a remark made by an actor portraying her son. The district court applied Mississippi law, following the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, since Ruffin was domiciled there. Mississippi law does not permit defamation claims to survive the plaintiff's death, leading to the dismissal of her claim after her death on August 15, 1999. The plaintiffs contended that Alabama law should apply, referencing her death certificate indicating she died there, but the court adhered to Michigan's choice of law rules, which favor Michigan law unless another state's interest is established. Defendants argued that only Mississippi had an interest in the case due to the nationwide broadcast of the mini-series. Even if Alabama law applied, it similarly does not allow defamation claims to survive a deceased plaintiff. The district court’s determination that Michigan law was inapplicable and its dismissal of the claim under Mississippi law was deemed proper, and the outcome would remain unchanged under Alabama law.
A prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Michigan law requires four elements: extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, causation, and severe emotional distress (Andrews v. Prudential Secs. Inc.). Recovery is not permitted for trivialities, as illustrated in Roberts v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., where mere insults do not warrant legal intervention. The district court found that the plaintiffs' claims varied but concluded that the defendants' actions were not tortious or outrageous. Even if inaccuracies in the mini-series were assumed to be true, they were not deemed extreme enough to surpass decency standards. The Ruffin plaintiffs argued that the depiction of David Ruffin's death was traumatic and required medical treatment, and that Earline Ruffin's portrayal as a prostitute was offensive. However, defendants contended that the mini-series was akin to non-outrageous statements found in other broadcasts (Ross v. Burns) and articles (Fry v. Ionia Sentinel-Standard). They also noted that Earline Ruffin did not allege emotional distress from her portrayal. The district court had evaluated her claim and found it lacking in extremity. The Ruffins referenced Meyer v. Nottger, where extreme conduct was present, but the court maintained that the defendants' actions did not reach that level. The district court's summary judgment favoring the defendants on claims of right of publicity, unjust enrichment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress was affirmed. Additionally, the court permitted some claims related to defamation and false light invasion of privacy to proceed. The district court ruled that, despite the arguments for applying Michigan law, Mississippi's interest in its residents' defamation claims was more significant. Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress by other plaintiffs were not appealed. The defendants' cited 'newsworthy' cases were distinguished from the plaintiffs' situation due to the alleged falsity in the mini-series.
