If I recall my intro-to-business-law-101 class from many years ago, the general goal of civil law is not to reward the victim or to punish the wrong-doer but to redress the damages done to the former by the latter. That is, you broke the law and harmed me in some way, so at the end of the law suit I should be back in the same position I would have been in had the law-breaking never occurred.
This means that, generally speaking you, have to demonstrate (based on a preponderance of the evidence) that not only did someone break the law, but also that you were harmed by it in some way. It's this second criteria that I you would have trouble proving.
I would expect that in your hypothetical case the court would reason as follows: Yes X number of people had "intercepted" your WIFI signals. Amount of damage you suffered as a consequences: None. Award in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of $0. Congratulations you just wasted a bunch of money in legal fees.
Now perhaps there are statutory damages involved (damages specifically laid out in the law that apply regardless of actual harm suffered by the victim, although I'm not aware of any that apply in this case). You might also make an argument for punitive damages (damages explicitly intended to push the law breaker rather to redress actual harm done to the victim, and what I assume is being sought in the case against Google, although I haven't been following it closely), however I think it would be hard to argue that such would apply to the people in your hypothetical court room as they hadn't knowingly connected to your WIFI, or at least certainly hadn't done so with malice intent.