最近更新：2025-04-02
2025-cv-03483
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 05/12/2025 | ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/12/2025: |
| 05/12/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, [26], is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order. |
| 05/06/2025 | EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit 2 to Rios Declaration |
| 04/30/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/21/2025, the court explained that if plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 4/28/2025. 24. To date, plaintiff has not done so. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 5/7/2025. |
| 04/28/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 04/21/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 20, is granted. 2. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 21, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 24. |
| 04/21/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave tof ile under seal, 19, and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, 21, are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 19. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's amended complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See id. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 19, and for a temporary restraining order, 21, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 8, 15, 18, 23, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 4/28/2025. |
| 04/17/2025 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit 2 to Rios Declaration |
| 04/17/2025 | MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 21 附件： 1:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4) 2:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3 3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2 4:Declaration Rios Declaration 5:Exhibit 1 6:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1 7:Declaration Hierl Declaration |
| 04/17/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication |
| 04/17/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation |
| 04/17/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 04/17/2025 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Amended Schedule A |
| 04/17/2025 | AMENDED complaint by Intersport Corp. against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 04/10/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: 1. In its response memorandum, plaintiff "requests leave to file an Amended Complaint to include a smaller subset for defendants." 13 at 3. The court therefore construes plaintiff's response memorandum as a motion for leave to amend. The motion for leave to amend is granted. An amended Schedule A is already filed on the docket. 15. 2. In light of the amended Schedule A, which names three defendants, 15, the court finds that plaintiff has discharged its obligation to show that joinder requirements have been met. See 12. 3. The amended Schedule A is filed on the docket under seal. 15. Plaintiff must, by 4/17/2025, file a properly supported motion to seal. 4. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 7, is granted. Plaintiff may file a brief (no longer than 30 pages) in support of a motion for temporary restraining order, motion for expedited discovery, and motion for alternative service. If plaintiff seeks to move on these grounds, these motions must be filed on the docket by 4/17/2025. |
| 04/09/2025 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit A regarding memorandum 14 |
| 04/09/2025 | MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder |
| 04/08/2025 | RESPONSE by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Memorandum in Response to Order of April 2, 2025 [Dkt. No. 12] |
| 04/02/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/9/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). |
| 04/02/2025 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 04/02/2025 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 04/01/2025 | CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. |
| 04/01/2025 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 04/01/2025 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O |
| 04/01/2025 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O Sealed Schedule A |
| 04/01/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 04/01/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by John Wilson |
| 04/01/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 04/01/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 04/01/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Michael A. Hierl |
| 04/01/2025 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 04/01/2025 | CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. |
| 04/01/2025 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 04/01/2025 | COMPLAINT filed by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23286885. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
