Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/22/2010. 1 MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (State Bar No. 122196) RACHEL R. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Declaration - DECLARATION OF ADAM B. See Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., Inc., 391 F.3d 1088, 1102 (9th Cir.2004) ("Descriptive or suggestive marks are relatively weak."). Saundra Brown Armstrong for all further proceedings. Ex. 0000005191 00000 n It is undisputed that Defendant offers no advice concerning investing in real estate to any third parties. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2010 01:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. v. 's Mot. 2753. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. As noted, the "need test" measures the extent to which a mark is necessary for competitors to identify their goods and services. Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System. (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff concedes as much, but argues such sophistication is irrelevant on the ground that its clients would not retain Plaintiff if they believed that it was focused on real estate management. Though acknowledging that Defendant had used the SAND HILL ADVISORS mark sometime after its formation in 1999, Plaintiff argued that such use was insufficient to show "use in commerce" for trademark purposes. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354. Within fourteen days of service of the proposed findings and recommendations, "any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court." Previously, Brenda was an Emeritus Boa rd Member at Boys & Girls Clubs of America and also held positions at CFA Society San Francisco, S&P Global. Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. In addition, Defendant asserts that the only reason Plaintiff commenced this action was to obtain the right to register its mark with the California Secretary of State. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 1/22/10. See Japan Telecom, Inc. v. Japan Telecom Am. 636(b)(1). (Mot. Though ultimately concluding that such evidence was insufficient to establish a issue of fact regarding secondary meaning, the Court did not find that Plaintiff's position was groundless or baseless. 4.) Mark H. Epstein in Department R Santa Monica Courthouse, DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk. STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, 7/27/2021: Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADAM B. STRUCKS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Hearing08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department R at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Status Conference, DocketUpdated -- Denis Shmidt (Attorney): Organization Name changed from Orsus Gate LLP to HARDER STONEROCK LLP, DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol Management LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant); Shima Capitol GP LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant); New Firm Name: HARDER STONEROCK LLP, DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Amnon Siegel (Attorney), DocketAddress for Amnon Siegel (Attorney) updated. Nor is it disputed that Plaintiff does not engage in the sale, purchase or lease of any commercial properties. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. Messrs. Sandell and Hill selected the name "Sand Hill" by combining the first four letters of Mr. Sandell's last name with Mr. Hill's last name. 3-5.) 2753. 0000002396 00000 n (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2010) Modified on 9/21/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF). Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). (Court Reporter: Diane Skillman.) (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2010). Having failed to show secondary meaning, Plaintiff cannot establish that it possesses a protectable mark, which is an essential element of its claim for service mark infringement. (Opp'n at 23.) WebSAND HILL GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC ( CRD # 111295/SEC#:801-58002 ) SAND HILL ADVISORS, INC., SAND HILL GLOBAL ADVISORS, LLC, SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC., SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. Plaintiff nonetheless insists that "Sand Hill," when combined with "Advisors," is suggestive, as opposed to descriptive. Complaint; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. 56, Filing (Hill Decl. See Fed.R.Civ.P. HWv6}WGj}I-Y]Ih RdJRx>#wHY 8}9|n{oXxlW0A(x{3|ZUzjlWgQ?mf7Es2P2AB& nwdse%7YPI*eoFH1GI!| WebOn February 24th, 2023, Sand Hills Chief Investment Officer, Brenda Vingiello, CFA, joined the CNBC Halftime Report panel to share her view on consumer strength in the current market environment. But, advertising, standing alone, does not establish secondary meaning. Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's motion for de novo determination of Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James' report and recommendation to deny Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees. WebIAPD provides information on Investment Adviser firms regulated by the SEC and/or state securities regulators. LANSING, Mich. (WILX) - About half of Michigans counties, including Ingham, Eaton and Hillsdale, have been named in a class-action lawsuit over profits from the sale Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc., 586 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. ), According to its founders, they changed the firm name to "Sand Hill Advisors" because of recent developments in its business and accompanying desire to no longer use individual's names to identify the firm. at 212:7-10. Sand Hill (Id. Indus. WebVenture Capital. In view of the dearth of evidence of actual confusion, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Id. 57. At Sand Hill, we have long-standing experience with RSUs, deferred compensation, and specialized tax 10; Davidson Decl. Ex. Id. Sand Hill Global Advisors 650-854-9150 Visit Site add_a_photo Overall info 5.0 Year Registered 2753. at 89:9-12.) Def. at 132:12-133:8; Conway Depo. 's Mot. 1052(f) (emphasis added). A. degree from University of California , Santa Cruz and a B. 0000000016 00000 n A district court judge may refer a matter to a magistrate judge to conduct a hearing, including an evidentiary hearing, and to thereafter issue findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the matter. Japan Telecom, 287 F.3d at 871; see also Comm. Id. YIDA GAO, ET AL VS ADAM B STRUCK, ET AL - UniCourt "In determining whether a mark has obtained secondary meaning, courts consider: (1) whether actual purchasers of the product bearing the mark associate the mark with the producer; (2) the degree and manner of advertising under the mark; (3) the length and manner of use of the mark; and (4) whether use of the mark has been exclusive." Notably, section 2(f) was neither addressed nor at issue in either case. 2005). STRUCK'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Reply - REPLY REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ADAM B. STRUCKS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, Cases involving other agreements or torts not classified elsewhere, 190, 1190, 2190, 3190, 4190, 4194, 5190, 5196. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, accompanied by objections to certain of the evidence offered by Defendant in support of its motion. 61, 64, 84, 85 Defendant. Indeed, Mr. Conway admitted that Defendant is not a competitor of Plaintiff. But it also presents new risks to manage. (McCaffrey Depo. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC VIA TELEPHONE (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2009) (Entered: 02/09/2009), JOINT REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Sand Hill Advisors LLC. (Entered: 01/12/2010), EXHIBIT C re 48 Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support, CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 50 filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/16/10. DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Adam B. Gary Conway testified at his deposition that the founders selected the "Sand Hill" name because the firm's offices were located on Sand Hill Road and they wanted to "trumpet" their location due to its "cache." (McCaffrey Depo. Defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment on this basis. If the PTO approves the registration under section 2(f), the presumption of validity conferred by the registration also "includes a presumption that the registered mark has acquired distinctiveness[.]" ANE Holdings, LLC et al. (Entered: 12/22/2009), Reply Memorandum re 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Struck (Defendant); As to: Yida Gao (Plaintiff); Sand Hill Advisors, LLC (Plaintiff); Shima Capitol LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Cross-Defendant) et al. (Hill Depo. K.) Where the market is inundated by products using the particular trademarked word, there is a corresponding likelihood that consumers "will not likely be confused by any two in the crowd." Where the mark is not registered, as in the instant case, a plaintiff must establish that its mark either is inherently distinctive, or has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's likelihood of confusion claim was "frivolous." startxref (emphasis added). trailer Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Id. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Declaration of James P. Martin, # 2 Appendix Proposed Order)(Martin, James) (Filed on 12/2/2009) Modified on 12/3/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). *** Declaration of Rachel R. Davidson in Support of 47 Reply Memorandum filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, Filing 2007). Sand Hill Global Advisors Reviews Plaintiff admittedly has no expert survey to support its claim of secondary meaning, but instead, relies entirely on evidence that it used the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark in its marketing and advertising efforts. L.R. ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Aside from being devoid of evidentiary support, Plaintiff's argument misses the point. 1502(e)(2). Co., Inc. v. Enco Mfg. [1] Plaintiff objects to the declaration of Albert Hill on the ground that he did not sign it under penalty of perjury. Surfvivor Media, 406 F.3d at 631-32. 1052(f). Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. "Secondary meaning can be established in many ways, including (but not limited to) direct consumer testimony; survey evidence; exclusivity, manner, and length of use of a mark; amount and manner of advertising; amount of sales and number of customers; established place in the market; and proof of intentional copying by the defendant." Plaintiff argues that its provision of real estate investment advice overlaps with Defendant's business. The record shows that over the course of the last ten years since Defendant began using the "Sand Hill Advisors" name, it has received only five or six telephone calls and one package intended for Plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, was unable to register the new name with the California Secretary of State because *1111 Defendant had previously registered the name with the State in 1999. Defendant has since corrected this error by submitting a properly verified version of Mr. Hill's declaration. (Opp'n at 13.) at 24:9-11. 32, Filing (Opp'n at 14.) (Id.). Pretrial Conference set for 2/16/2010 01:00 PM.. ), As a result of Plaintiff's inability to register the name "Sand Hill Advisors LLC" with the California Secretary of State, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court on November 4, 2008, alleging a single claim for service mark infringement under the Lanham Act. 0000005571 00000 n (Entered: 02/24/2009), ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge for ALL Discovery purposes. MC/ Case No: C 08-5016 Mar. at 24:1-14.) (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Non-Government Works Copyright 2001-2023 Think Computer Corporation. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC Hill v. Snyder | American Civil Liberties Union Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund II GP, LLC (Defendant); Divergence Digital Currency Management LLC (Defendant); Divergence Digital Currency GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Special Situations GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Special Situations Management LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Stage Agnostic GP LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch Series B LLC (Defendant); Struck Scratch Series A LLC (Defendant); Ignis SPV LLC (Defendant); Ignis Series B LLC (Defendant); Probitas SPV LLC (Defendant); Vectio SPV LLC (Defendant); Zero SPV LLC (Defendant); Serico SPV LLC (Defendant); Struck PF Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); Struck OTI Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); SC Tectus SPV LLC (Defendant); Struck Hoco LLC (Defendant); Struck A43 LLC (Defendant); Struck AHC Special Opportunity LLC (Defendant); Zero Series B SPV LLC (Defendant); As to, Pursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration scheduled for 06/24/2021 at 09:00 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R Not Held - Rescheduled by Party was rescheduled to 08/03/2021 09:00 AM, Case Management Conference scheduled for 09/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, Case assigned to Hon. Here, Plaintiff asserts that its evidence shows that since it changed its name in 1995 to "Sand Hill Advisors," it has advertised the mark through a variety of *1118 channels. (Entered: 12/23/2009), RESPONSE to re 45 Objection to Evidence filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir.2002). startxref The Court concludes that the services are unrelated, and this factor weighs in favor of the Defendant. We are experts in guiding wealthy families and individuals through complex financial transitions. at 47:2-73:8; Creighton Depo. On January 26, 2010, the Court issued its Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant.1 See Order Granting Def. Founded Date Jan 1, 1982. VS SEAN SABERI, ET AL. 2.) 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). . Defendant contends that Plaintiff's clients and those individuals likely to do business with Defendant are sophisticated, and hence, are unlikely to be confused. "Some factors are much more helpful than others, and the relative importance of each individual factor will be case specific. [I]t is often possible to reach a conclusion with respect to likelihood of confusion after considering only a subset of the factors." Defendant contends that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith, ostensibly because it pursued the action knowing that it had no protectable mark. The matter has been fully briefed, and is now ripe for determination. 5 and Ex. 0000000736 00000 n Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b)(1); see Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. Sand Hill Advisors LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors LLC, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SAND HILL ADVISORS LLC, a California limited liability company. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and admissions on file that establish the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., 586 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir.2009). J. at 16-17, Dkt. E, F, H, K, L; Williams Depo. See Report and Recommendation Re: Def. (Date Filed: 2/18/2009). (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010) Modified on 6/25/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF). Plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. %PDF-1.4 Relying on that standard, Plaintiff takes the position that Defendant did not begin using the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark in commerce until 2005, when started using the mark in connection with its website and on banners and flyers. 47 0 obj<>stream at 27:13-23.) A descriptive mark may be subject to protection under the Lanham Act if it has acquired a secondary meaning. That leaves "descriptive" marks, which are not considered inherently distinctive because *1113 they define a particular characteristic of a product in a way that does not require any exercise of the imagination. 1117(a). Messrs. Sandell and Hill filed their Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization with the California Secretary of State on April 27, 1999. She testified that such mark was chosen because of its geographical reference, since they worked and lived in that area, and were active in the community. Plaintiff's assertion that the parties overlap in the area of real estate services paints with too broad a brush. "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." (Martin, James) (Filed on 12/11/2009) Modified on 12/14/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). First Republic Bank was shuttered by regulators early Monday, and all its deposits and most of its assets were acquired by JPMorgan. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC v. Sand Hill Advisors, LLC :: California Public Records Policy. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, on February 26, 2009. They're working to cleanup and update technology and procedures (the new website looks great), which is a positive, but overdue. AMENDED ORDER re 91 Order. A subscription to PACER is required. VIA TELEPHONE. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009) (Entered: 02/20/2009), STIPULATION and Proposed Protective Order, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC., Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 's Mot. Struck (Defendant); Struck Capital Management, LLC (Defendant); Struck Capital Fund GP LLC (Defendant) et al. But there's still some wrinkles that need to be ironed out so it can work with its cousin from The Clearing House. 72(b)(1); Civ. q 7@t020B bNq E An applicant nevertheless may seek to register a descriptive mark pursuant to section 2(f), which creates a presumption of distinctiveness (or "acquired distinctiveness"), where the applicant can establish at least five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. Sand Hill Advisors LLC: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re {{61}} MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC Objections to R&R due by 6/15/2010. DocketStatus Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 08/29/2023 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R, DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Status Conference re: Arbitration scheduled for 10/04/2022 at 08:30 AM in Santa Monica Courthouse at Department R Held - Continued was rescheduled to 08/29/2023 08:30 AM, DocketMinute Order (Status Conference re: Arbitration), DocketUpdated -- Declaration Of Frank D. Rorie JR. However, the issue was not as simple as Defendant now purports it to be. (Hill Decl. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2010). The Court conducted an hour-long hearing on the motion on January 12, 2010. The parties are presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. (Miller Decl. 3 and Ex. "The `true test of secondary meaning' is the effectiveness of the advertising effort." trailer (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2010). 10 22 Plaintiff is a wealth management firm that provides advice to its wealthy clients to assist them in the management of their assets; to that end, provides advice on investment planning, retirement and estate planning and philanthropic strategies. Despite Defendant's intimation to the contrary, the Court did not conclude that a mark is weakened by common use of terms comprising the mark only where the marks are identical. "Marks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness; . Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc., 581 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 0000001856 00000 n In addition to her role as CIO, Brenda serves as the chair of the Sand Hill Investment Committee and is a member of the Executive Committee, a small team charged with setting the firms long-term strategic course. 56(e); Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. at 24:1-12 ("at the time we were located on Sand Hill Road. Plaintiff responds that in order to challenge its showing of a "substantially continuous" use of the "Sand Hill Advisors" mark, Defendant is required to show that it used the mark in advertising or in a manner that describes its services. "A strong possibility that either party may expand his business to compete with the other will weigh in favor of finding that the present use is infringing." 0 0000000940 00000 n 3.) 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options, filed by Sand Hill Advisors LLC (Miller, Katherine) (Filed on 1/28/2009) Modified on 1/29/2009 (jlm, COURT STAFF). The Court found that 2(f) was inapplicable because the mark was unregistered. (Entered: 02/26/2009), ADR Clerks Notice Appointing James Gilliland as Mediator. Plaintiff is a so-called "wealth management" firm that caters to high net worth individuals. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008), ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses, Exhibits A - D by Sand Hill Advisors LLC. 0000004838 00000 n (Williams Decl. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., *1116 Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 991 (9th Cir.2006). DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Adam B. DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk, U.S. District Courts | Other | As such, even if section 2(f) could be applied to unregistered marks, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the requisite five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use. Only admissible evidence may be considered in ruling on a motion for motion for summary judgment. (Conway Depo. ), Defendant is a California limited liability company formed by business partners Bert Sandell and Albert Hill, Jr., located in Los Altos, California. 1989). The `need test' focuses on the extent to which a mark is actually needed by competitors to identify their goods or services." 2.) The district court must review de novo "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 2505. While both parties operate websites, Plaintiff has admitted that no one viewing Defendant's website would confuse it with Plaintiff's site. WebSAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. SAND HILL ADVISORS, LLC, a California limited liability company, Dkt. at 22.) 0000013270 00000 n at 8-9. As for the issue of whether Plaintiff could establish the requisite five years of continuous and exclusive use, the Court finds that Defendant raised a colorable argument in support of such a claim. Pl. After considering the motion on the papers submitted, the Magistrate issued a thorough, fourteen-page order in which she recommended denying Defendant's motion. for Attorneys' Fees ("R&R"), Dkt. 6/17/2015: In re BTC Trading, Corp. and Ethan Burnside United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division. Alternatively, the Court concluded that even if 2(f) were germane, Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the requisite five years of exclusive and continuous use. To reflect this change, Plaintiff then sought to change its name from "Sand Hill Advisors, Inc." to "Sand Hill Advisors, LLC." Plaintiff argues that this factor is germane only where the marks are different, and inapposite in cases such as the present where the marks are identical. 0000001817 00000 n C.) In March 1999, Conway, Williams & Foster, Inc., again changed its name to Sand Hill Advisors, Inc. (Id. No one has written a summary of this case yet. IAPD - Investment Adviser Public Disclosure - Homepage 0000002351 00000 n Equally unpersuasive is Defendant's contention that Plaintiff had no basis upon which to rely on section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 69, Filing Here, the services offered by Plaintiff and Defendant are fundamentally distinct. "s1&8,2R8{(.ib,8"oa#r8X|/(~?|2L 0.eGPhk~oG?f(EIz>k @)e\+p\R8rsC/b9,,yNJilRhmZ5eirfiBb%_{@GFq6$t^S9:W-'Y). 636(b)(1); see Fed.R.Civ.P 72(b). GoTo. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. B, Williams Depo. The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by "compelling proof."
34dd Bra Size Celebrities, Sherman's Lagoon Archives, Articles S