You'd normally think that an opinion that was completely fact-dependent and was simply about whether the plaintiff had adequately stated a garden variety cause of action would be unworthy of comment. Like this one.
You'd be right. Normally.
But I have to make at least a brief reference to the opinion for two reasons.
First, the contract at issue is a funny one. Funny as in "strange" but also as in "ha ha". According to the Court of Appeal, here's what plaintiff -- who filed in pro per -- said about the relevant contract:
"Maxwell alleged that Dolezal had used his photograph and his website, JordanMaxwell.com, without Maxwell’s authorization or consent and for the purposes of advertising and/or soliciting purchases of merchandise. Maxwell alleged that, as a result, he had suffered injury to his business and lost income as a celebrity; he sought damages and an injunction preventing Dolezal from using his website and likeness for advertising or soliciting purchase or rental of videos. . . .
[Maxwell] alleged that on or about March 30, 2010, he entered into an agreement with Dolezal in which he agreed to assign his intellectual property rights in exchange for free housing, free food, and 50 percent of the monies received as a result."
JordanMaxwell.com. In return for "free housing, free food, and 50 percent." Classic.
Second, of course, I had to investigate the actual web site.
Ordinarily I'd simply provide a link. And I will. But it's too good not to share directly. It's just that awesome: