of another.’” Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn.1998) (footnote omitted). “To tortiously appropriate an individual’s name, one must appropriate for the purpose of taking advantage of that individual’s name, or reputation.” Kovatovich v. K-Mart Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 975, 986-87 (D.Minn.1999). The Minnesota Supreme Court cited the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C when recognizing the tort of appropriation. The Restatement notes that appropriation applies “when the defendant makes use of the plaintiffs name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained in not a pecuniary one.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C, cmt. b. See also Felsh 79, 280 N.W.2d 129, 137 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The evidence before the Court supports a
holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that plaintiff stated a prima facie case for common law appropriation of his well known nickname crazylegs because all that is required is that the name clearly identify the wronged person holding that a plaintiff is required to identify specific acts of individual defendants  for his claim to survive holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case