Welles

MEMORANDUM

Terri Welles cross-appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to her counterclaims against Playboy Enterprises International (PEI) for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair competition, and interference with prospective economic advantage. 2 Michael Mihalko, Stephen Huntington, and Welles appeal the district court’s denial of their requests for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 3 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. 4 We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.

As to Welles’ claims of defamation, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that Welles is a limited purpose public figure. The trademark dispute involved in this litigation—the controversy—is a public one. 6 Welles voluntarily placed herself in the center…