Michael Haley, Okyeame Haley and Blair Haley v. Candice Henderson and the Friends of the Freedom House

MICHAEL HALEY, * NO. 2024-CA-0741
OKYEAME HALEY AND
BLAIR HALEY * COURT OF APPEAL

VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT

CANDICE HENDERSON AND * STATE OF LOUISIANA
THE FRIENDS OF THE
FREEDOM HOUSE *******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2023-05929, DIVISION “D”
Honorable Monique E. Barial, Judge
******
Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano
******
(Court composed of Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins,
Judge Karen K. Herman)

N. Sundiata Haley
HALEY LAW FIRM, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2317
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

William D. Aaron, Jr.
DeWayne L. Williams
AARON & GIANNA, PLC
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 3800
New Orleans, LA 70170

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AFFIRMED
APRIL 3, 2025

JCL This case involves an injunction regarding name, image, and likeness rights,

SCJ also referred to as “identity rights.” Defendants/appellants, Candice Henderson and

KKH the Friends of the Freedom House (collectively “Henderson”), appeal the district

court’s judgment dated September 13, 2024, which denied their “Motion to

Dissolve or Alternatively Modify Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction and Request for Damages and Attorney Fees.” For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs/appellees, Michael Haley, Okyeame Haley, and Blair Haley

(collectively, the “Heirs”), are the descendants and heirs of Oretha Castle Haley, a

prominent local Civil Rights figure. The underlying dispute stems from

Henderson’s acquisition of a property, which was Oretha Castle Haley’s home

during her childhood and throughout the Civil Rights Era, and Henderson’s

subsequent attempts to turn the property into a Civil Rights museum, event space,

and short-term rental, while using Oretha Castle Haley’s name, image, and likeness

1

in promotion of these efforts. On June 26, 2023, the Heirs filed a petition for

temporary restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, and permanent

injunction, claiming violations of the recently enacted Allen Toussaint Legacy Act

(the “Legacy Act”), La. R.S. 51:470.1 et seq., which provides for heritable name,

image, and likeness rights. On the same date, the district court signed a TRO

prohibiting Henderson “from using the name, image and/or likeness of Oretha

Castle Haley in any manner whatsoever.” The preliminary injunction hearing was

initially scheduled on July 11, 2023, but was continued twice at Henderson’s

request, while Henderson agreed to permit the TRO to remain in place. Meanwhile,

on July 21, 2023, the Heirs filed a motion for contempt, arguing that Henderson

violated the TRO through her website and social media promotion of museum

exhibits displaying Oretha Castle Haley’s name, image, and likeness.

On August 1, 2023, the hearing went forward on the preliminary injunction

and rule for contempt. The district court rendered a written judgment on August

21, 2023, granting the preliminary injunction and prohibiting Henderson “from

using the name, image and/or likeness of Oretha Castle Haley in [any] manner

whatsoever” and “from representing the legacy of Oretha Castle Haley in any

manner whatsoever.” The rule for contempt was also granted. Henderson did not

appeal the judgment.

On July 10, 2024, Henderson filed a “Motion to Dissolve or Alternatively

Modify Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Request for

Damages and Attorney Fees.” Henderson argued that the Heirs’ identity rights

2

terminated through nonuse of Oretha Castle Haley’s name, image, and likeness for

commercial purposes during a period of three years. Henderson also contended that

the Heirs failed to furnish security in connection with the issuance of the TRO or

preliminary injunction. Lastly, in the alternative, she argued the preliminary

injunction should be modified as vague and overly broad, as its “any manner

whatsoever” language expands beyond the scope of the protections of the Legacy

Act and in violation of her freedom of speech rights.

On August 23, 2024, the district court held a hearing on the motion to

dissolve or modify, where the court denied the motion from the bench. The district

court rendered a written judgment on September 13, 2024 reflecting its ruling. This

appeal followed.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, Henderson asserts that the district court legally erred and/or

abused its discretion in failing to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction.

She raises similar arguments to those made below: (1) the Heirs’ identity rights

terminated upon three years of nonuse for commercial purposes; (2) the Heirs were

required to post security to obtain injunctive relief; and (3) the preliminary

injunction is overly broad.

Allen Toussaint Legacy Act, La. R.S. 51:470.1 et seq.

The Legacy Act was enacted in 2022 and is set forth in La. R.S. 51:470.1

through 51:470.6. The interpretation of these statutes is a matter of first

impression. Under the Legacy Act, “[e]very individual has a property right in

3

connection with the use of that individual’s identity for commercial purposes.” La.

R.S. 51:470.3(A). Pursuant to the pertinent portions of the definitions section:

(3) “Commercial purposes” means the use of an
individual’s identity for any of the following purposes:

(a) On or in connection with products, merchandise,
goods, services, commercial activities, or
performances.

(b) For advertising, soliciting, or promoting products,
merchandise, goods, services, commercial activities,
or performances.

(c) For the purpose of fundraising.
…
(6) “Identity” means an individual’s name, voice,
signature, photograph, image, likeness, or digital replica.

(7) “Individual” means a living natural person domiciled
in Louisiana or a deceased natural person who was
domiciled in Louisiana at the time of the individual’s
death.

La. R.S. 51:470.2.

Identity rights do not expire upon death of the individual and are heritable.

La. R.S. 51:470.3(B)-(C). Identity rights terminate as a matter of law upon the

earlier of the following circumstances:

(1) Proof of nonuse of the individual’s identity for
commercial purposes by an individual’s authorized
representative for a period of three consecutive years
following the individual’s death.

(2) Fifty years following the individual’s death.

La. R.S. 51:470.3(E).

“It shall be a violation of this Subpart for any person to use an individual’s

identity for a commercial purpose in Louisiana without having first obtained

4

consent from the individual or the individual’s authorized representative.” La. R.S.

51:470.4(A). Under this statute, a person who violates an individual’s identity

rights may be liable for damages. La. R.S. 51:470.4(E)(1). Also, “[a] court of

competent jurisdiction may grant the plaintiff, in a proceeding under this Section, a

temporary restraining order or an order for injunctive relief.” La. R.S.

51:470.4(E)(2).

Dissolution or Modification of Preliminary Injunction

Pursuant to the Legacy Act’s provision for injunctive relief, the Heirs

obtained in the district court a TRO followed by a preliminary injunction.

Henderson sought to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction under La.

C.C.P. art. 3607, which permits an “interested person” to “move for the dissolution

or modification of a … preliminary injunction, upon two days’ notice to the

adverse party, or such shorter notice as the court may prescribe. The court shall

proceed to hear and determine the motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice

may require.” A motion to dissolve or modify a preliminary injunction has a

specific and limited procedural function, wherein the district court must consider

only the evidence presented and the arguments raised at the time the preliminary

injunction was granted and must then determine whether the preliminary injunction

should have been granted. As one court explained the standard:

The mover is not required to show that a change in
circumstances has occurred before a preliminary
injunction may be dissolved. Zanella’s Wax Bar, LLC v.
Trudy’s Wax Bar, LLC, []19-0043 (La. App. 1st Cir.
11/7/19), 291 So.3d 693, 697, writ denied, []19-01931
(La. 1/28/20), 291 So.3d 1052. However, on a motion to

5

dissolve a preliminary injunction, a trial court should not
consider arguments or evidence that could have been
raised at the time the preliminary injunction was issued.
Turbine Powered Technology, LLC v. Crowe, []18-0881
(La. App. 1st Cir. 9/5/19), (unpublished) 2019 WL
4201579, *9, writ denied, []19-01548 (La. 11/19/19), 282
So.3d 1063.

The sole question to be determined at a hearing to
dissolve a preliminary injunction is whether, on the facts
disclosed, the court should have granted the injunction in
the first instance. Turbine Powered Technology, LLC,
2019 WL 4201579 at *9.

Livingston Par. Sch. Bd. v. Kellett, 22-1240, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/18/23), 368

So.3d 621, 626.

The party seeking the preliminary injunction bears the burden to “establish

by prima facie evidence that: (1) it will suffer irreparable injury, loss, or damage if

the motion is not granted; and (2) it is entitled to the relief on a showing that it will

likely prevail on the merits.” Ard v. GrrlSpot, LLC, 19-0312, p. 14 (La. App. 4 Cir.

10/23/19), 364 So.3d 358, 366. Generally, a district court’s decision granting or

denying a preliminary injunction is subject to review for an abuse of discretion.

Two Canal St. Invs., Inc. v. New Orleans Bldg. Corp., 15-0924, p. 5 (La. App. 4

Cir. 4/20/16), 193 So.3d 278, 282. “That broad standard is, of course, based upon a

conclusion that the [district] court committed no error of law and was not

manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in making a factual finding that was

necessary to the proper exercise of its discretion.” Yokum v. Pat O’Brien’s Bar,

Inc., 12-0217, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/15/12), 99 So.3d 74, 80. Factual

determinations in the granting or denial of preliminary injunctions are subject to

the manifest error standard of review. Two Canal St. Invs., Inc., 15-0924, p. 5, 193

6

So.3d at 282. Where the lower court commits an error of law, the de novo standard

of review applies. Id., 15-0924, p. 5, 193 So.3d at 282-83.

Termination of Identity Rights

We first address Henderson’s argument that the Heirs’ identity rights

terminated due to three years of nonuse for commercial purposes. We begin by

recognizing that, on a motion to dissolve or terminate a preliminary injunction, the

district court may not consider new evidence or new arguments that could have

been presented at the time the preliminary injunction was granted. See Kellett, 22-

1240, p. 6, 368 So.3d at 626; La. C.C.P. art. 3607. Instead, the proper inquiry to the

district court is whether “on the facts disclosed, the court should have granted the

injunction in the first instance.” Kellett, 22-1240, p. 6, 368 So.3d at 626. The

hearing transcript reflects that the Heirs offered the testimony of two of the

plaintiffs, Michael Haley and Okyeame Haley. Henderson introduced new

documentary evidence: Secretary of State records that The Learning Workshop,

Inc. – a facility founded and operated by Oretha Castle Haley to provide childcare,

educational, and transportation services – was inactive and had not filed an annual

report since 1986; and City of New Orleans reports that the building where the

Learning Workshop, Inc. was located is a blighted property. This evidence was not

properly before the district court as it could have been brought at the time the

preliminary injunction was issued, but it was not.

We also note that while the Heirs bear the burden of proof on their

entitlement to a preliminary injunction, Henderson bears the burden of proof on

7

any affirmative defenses she may raise. See Fin & Feather, LLC v. Plaquemines

Par. Gov’t, 16-0256, p. 9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/28/16), 202 So.3d 1028, 1034 (“[a]

party defendant who asserts an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof

thereof”)(quotation omitted). “Louisiana jurisprudence defines an affirmative

defense as a defense that raises a new matter, which assuming the allegations in the

petition are true, constitutes a defense to the action.” Id., 16-0256, pp. 6-7, 202

So.3d at 1033 (internal quotations omitted). At least one court in another state

characterized abandonment of a property right in name, image, and likeness as an

affirmative defense on which the party asserting the affirmative defense bore that

burden of proof. See Est. of Bisignano by & through Huntsman v. Exile Brewing

Co., LLC, 694 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1123-24 (S.D. Iowa 2023). Consistent with this

reasoning, under La. R.S. 51:470.3(E)(1), identity rights terminate upon “[p]roof of

nonuse of the individual’s identity for commercial purposes by an individual’s

authorized representative for a period of three consecutive years following the

individual’s death.” It follows that a defendant seeking to defeat injunctive relief

over identity rights would be the party seeking to supply such proof. The district

court found, and we agree, that Henderson bore the burden to show that identity

rights terminated; however, Henderson did not meet her burden of proof.

For the reasons above, we do not consider the new evidence adduced at the

hearing on the motion to dissolve or modify. Very limited evidence of the Heirs’

commercial use was presented at the August 2023 hearing on the preliminary

injunction. Henderson specifically cites a line of questioning wherein Okyeame

8

Haley admitted in his testimony that he could not remember a time when he

personally earned a profit from his mother’s name, image, and likeness.

Nevertheless, it is undisputed that the Heirs are the appropriate authorized

representatives; that Henderson did not inherit identity rights; and that Henderson

used Oretha Castle Haley’s name and photograph in her museum exhibits, on

social media, in fundraising, and in soliciting donations and rentals. We cannot

say, in this context, that Okyeame Haley’s testimony, without more, is dispositive

of the termination of the Heirs’ identity rights. We discern no abuse of discretion in

the district court’s rejection of this argument and its denial of the request to

dissolve the preliminary injunction.

Sufficiency of Language Describing Acts to be Restrained

Additionally, we find no merit in Henderson’s argument seeking to modify

the language of the preliminary injunction, which she argues is overly broad.

Henderson seeks to vacate the injunction’s reference to the “legacy” of Oretha

Castle Haley and to add limiting language constraining the injunction to

“commercial conduct” and subjecting it to “exempt uses” under the Legacy Act.1

1 Numerous “exempt uses” are enumerated in La. R.S. 51:470.5 as follows:

B. It shall not constitute a violation of this Subpart to use an
individual’s identity under any of the following circumstances:
(1) In connection with a news, public affairs, sports transmission or
account, or political campaign.
(2) In a work of political, public interest, educational, or
newsworthy value, including comment, criticism, or parody, or
similar works, such as documentaries, docudramas, or historical or
biographical works, or a representation of an individual as himself
or herself, regardless of the degree of fictionalization.
(3) In a play, book, magazine, newspaper, literary work, musical
composition, single and original work of art or photograph, or
visual work.

9

Under La. C.C.P. art. 3605, “[a]n order granting either a preliminary or a final

injunction or a temporary restraining order shall describe in reasonable detail, and

not by mere reference to the petition or other documents, the act or acts sought to

be restrained.”

It is readily apparent that the parties subject to the preliminary injunction are

identified. The acts enjoined are also sufficiently described: using the name, image,

and/or likeness of Oretha Castle Haley. Even though the Legacy Act contains no

definition of “legacy,” it is obvious from reading the statutes, together and in light

of one another, that they regulate commercial use of a property right in identity.

This is precisely what the district court determined that Henderson violated.

Even though the language “in any manner whatsoever” is broad, Henderson

fails to articulate with any specificity how it should be more narrowly tailored,

beyond merely parroting the statutory language already contemplated in the 2023

(4) In a sound recording, audiovisual work, motion picture, or
radio or television program, unless the use creates an unauthorized
performance.
(5) Any act of restoration or preservation of a sound recording,
audiovisual work, or radio or television program.
(6) In an advertisement, commercial announcement, or display of
any of the works described in this Subpart.
(7) To accurately identify the individual as the author of a given
work, or a performer of a given work or performance, under
circumstances in which the work or performance is otherwise
rightfully reproduced, exhibited, or broadcast.
(8) To lawfully make a work available for sale or licensing
purposes insofar as the terms of the sale or license do not permit
the user to violate this Subpart.
(9) Data collection or data reporting and supplying the data
collected or reported.
(10) Data processing, data matching, data distribution, or data
licensing.
(11) In connection with the publication of an expressive work
created prior to August 1, 2022.
(12) If the use is merely incidental.

10

judgment. Moreover, at no time in the proceedings did Henderson come forward

with evidence of an exempt use of name, image, and likeness. Rather, Henderson’s

argument is that the Heirs’ rights have terminated, such that no bar exists to

Henderson’s use of name, image, and likeness for any commercial purpose. We are

unable to discern from her arguments what freedom of speech rights she claims to

have been constrained. Moreover, we are mindful that a “preliminary injunction is

an interlocutory procedural device designed to preserve the status quo as it exists

between the parties, pending trial on the merits.” Faubourg Marigny Imp. Ass’n,

Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 15-1308, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/25/16), 195 So.3d

606, 615. Instead of disturbing the effects of the preliminary injunction at this

stage, we find it more appropriate for this matter to proceed to a full trial to

determine, with complete evidence, whether the Heirs are entitled to a permanent

injunction enforcing the identity rights they claim and enjoining others from

exercising such rights. In the procedural posture before us, however, we cannot say

that Henderson is entitled to the relief she seeks, and we will not disturb the

preliminary injunction or the judgment of the district court.

Security for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction

Henderson argues that the district court erroneously failed to require a bond

be posted to obtain the preliminary injunction. The Legacy Act is silent as to any

requirement of security to obtain injunctive relief. Under La. C.C.P. art. 3610, a

“temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction shall not issue unless the

applicant furnishes security in the amount fixed by the court, except where security

11

is dispensed with by law.” The district court granted the TRO without any order

that security be posted. Henderson agreed to the TRO remaining in effect for six

weeks, so that the Heirs would not object to continuance of the hearing on the

preliminary injunction and rule for contempt. Compare Thiele v. Pembo, 23-213, p.

6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/13/24), 384 So.3d 1067, 1071 (where the aggrieved party “did

not raise [noncompliance with civil procedure articles concerning injunction]

before the trial court and did not file an application for supervisory writs with this

Court[,]” her “assignments of error regarding the temporary restraining order are

not properly before this Court for review on appeal … [and] will not be

considered”).

The record reflects no written opposition to the preliminary injunction or

other filing seeking to impose security. During arguments at the preliminary

injunction hearing, Henderson raised the issue of security for the first time. The

district court found that the Legacy Act did not require security to obtain the

preliminary injunction, and Henderson did not appeal that ruling. Under La. C.C.P.

art. 3612, an appeal from a judgment relating to a preliminary injunction must be

taken within fifteen days of the date of that judgment. Henderson did not file her

motion to dissolve or modify the injunction until nearly one year later, during

which period the preliminary injunction remained in place without any order to

post security. At the hearing of the motion to dissolve or modify, the district court

stated in its oral reasons that the issue of security was no longer before it. Under

12

these particular procedural circumstances, we decline to disturb the district court’s

ruling.

Attorney’s Fees

Finally, we reject Henderson’s argument that she was entitled to attorney’s

fees for wrongful issuance of the TRO and/or preliminary injunction. Under La.

C.C.P. art. 3608, “[a]ttorney’s fees for the services rendered in connection with the

dissolution of a restraining order or preliminary injunction may be included as an

element of damages whether the restraining order or preliminary injunction is

dissolved on motion or after trial on the merits.” Because we uphold the district

court’s denial of the motion to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction,

Henderson is not entitled to attorney’s fees. We find no merit in this argument.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the

September 13, 2024 judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

13