Like many, Beverly Stayart was curious about what she would find when she put her name into a search engine. In this case it was Yahoo. To her dismay, the comprehensive search results eventually contained links to websites and advertisements that she found shameful. She then sued Yahoo and the other defendants alleging trademark infringement and a host of state law claims. The district court dismissed her complaint, finding she lacked standing under the Lanham Act to sue for trademark infringement. She appeals, and because we agree that Stayart lacks standing under the Lanham Act, we affirm.Despite losing that particular lawsuit, Stayart kept at it. She sued Yahoo! and Google in federal court based entirely on Wisconsin state law claims. Those claims, however, were dismissed as well (as noted in the update to the previous post).
Still, Stayart persisted. Having lost on the merits in her federal cases against Yahoo! and Google, she filed suit against Various, Inc. (d/b/a AdultFriendFinder) in Wisconsin state court. Various had been a defendant in the the Lanham Act case that the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of back in 2010. The state law claims had been pleaded there, too, premised on "supplemental jurisdiction," but Judge Randa declined to exercise it after the federal claim was dismissed. He also refused to let Stayart amend her complaint to allege diversity jurisdiction because "it does not seem likely that Stayart could make a good faith allegation that her damages are more than $75,000."
After being served with the state court case, Various promptly removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Stayart sought remand based on the court's previous finding that there was less than $75,000 in controversy. That set up an interesting issue. Previously, Stayart had argued that more than $75,000 was in controversy and Various had argued that less tahn $75,000 was in controversy—but now their positions were reversed!
Under the circumstances, the judge (Judge JP Stadtmueller, this time) found that Various was collaterally estopped to argue that the amount in controversy was more than $75,000. So the case was remanded to state court.
Once remanded, Various moved to dismiss the case on the merits. But that motion to dismiss has been denied—giving Stayart her first substantive victory in her many years of litigation. Based on the docket, the case now appears to be mired in discovery hell. Just last week, the defendants filed a motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Stayart, who seems to have, um, left the jurisdiction. The judge granted that motion, ordering that Ms. Stayart appear for a deposition in Milwaukee and explicitly threatening to dismiss the complaint if she does not.
Now, if you've clicked through to read my previous post, you may have noticed that there are a few unusual comments recently left by Anonymous (that noted Internet provocateur), such as this reply to a comment by Mr. Gillette but probably directed at me:
