Professional models file three suits against Birmingham venues Club Volcano, El Sol Nightclub, and Bosses Lounge over images used in social media ads: complaint allegations

What was filed

All three complaints are Document 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division. Sampedro et al. v. El Sol Corporation, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02087, was filed October 20, 2026, by twelve plaintiffs and runs 30 pages. Ilene et al. v. Bosses Private Lounge, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-02089, was filed October 21, 2026, by five plaintiffs and runs 24 pages. Geiger et al. v. Volcano, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-02090, was filed October 21, 2026, by seven plaintiffs and runs 25 pages. Each pleads the same ten causes of action and demands a jury trial, and the same lawyers sign all three: John V. Golaszewski of The Casas Law Firm, P.C. and Adam V. Vickers of Intellectual Property Consulting, LLC. The exhibits showing the images are not freely available on the public docket.

The parties

The plaintiffs in the El Sol case are Claudia Sampedro, Dessie Mitcheson, Iesha Marie Crespo, Jaime Edmondson Longoria, Janet Guzman, Jessica Hinton a/k/a Jessa Hinton, Jessica "Charm" Killings, Jessica Nichole Rockwell, Lina Posada, Tiffany Keller, Yodit Yemane a/k/a Jodie Joe, and Emily Scott. The plaintiffs in the Bosses case are Ashley Ilene, Marketa Lim a/k/a Marketa Kazdova, Lian "Bailey" McKethen, Stephanie Rao, and Yodit Yemane a/k/a Jodie Joe. The plaintiffs in the Volcano case are Brenda Geiger, Claudia Sampedro, Iesha Marie Crespo, Rosa Acosta, Yodit Yemane a/k/a Jodie Joe, Janet Guzman, and Ashley Ilene. Each complaint describes the plaintiffs as well-known professional models who live throughout the United States and earn their living modeling and licensing their images. Each describes the defendant, citing publicly available records, as an Alabama corporation (El Sol and Volcano) or limited liability company (Bosses) based in Birmingham, Alabama, and alleges, on information and belief, that it operates the venue named in its d/b/a.

What the complaints allege

Each complaint alleges that the defendant used the venue's social media accounts, including Facebook and Instagram, to promote the business and attract patrons, and that each plaintiff's images were misappropriated and intentionally altered to make it appear that she worked at, endorsed, or was otherwise affiliated with the venue. Each plaintiff says she never worked there, was never hired to endorse it, never consented, and was never paid. The complaints allege that the plaintiffs have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning by using their images and identities to build their brands, that the defendant knew its use would cause confusion about the plaintiffs' sponsorship or employment, and, on information and belief, that it did cause that confusion. They also allege injury to the plaintiffs' careers and reputations from the false association.

Besides the two Lanham Act counts, each complaint pleads claims under the Alabama Right of Publicity Act, Ala. Code §§ 6-5-770 through 6-5-774, common law right of publicity, the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et seq., defamation, negligence and respondeat superior, conversion, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Each prayer asks for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, a permanent injunction against using the plaintiffs' images to promote the venue, punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, and damages under the two Alabama statutes.