United States Eleventh Circuit

Summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred by raising the Communications Decency Act of 1996 sua sponte when defendant was required to raise it as an affirmative defense; 2) the CDA does not apply to causes of action predicated on "any law pertaining to intellectual property"; 3) the CDA does not immunize defendant because it is not an "information content provider"; 4) plaintiff never consented to the use of her image in the second edition of a book, so the first-sale doctrine does not apply; and 5) the district court made various procedural errors regarding plaintiff's right of publicity claim.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/18/2006
• Published 07/18/2006

Judges

• RESTANI, Judge:, Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.

Court

• United States Eleventh Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Craig P. Kalil, Hendrik G. Milne, Carlos F. Osorio, Aballi, Milne, Kalil & Escagedo, P.A., Miami, FL, for Almeida.


• For Appellees:
  
• Vanessa Soriano Power, Stoel Rie, LLP, Seattle, WA, John H. Pelzer, Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.