最近更新：2026-02-04
2026-cv-01197
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 03/20/2026 | Reconsideration |
| 03/18/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, expedited discovery, and electronic service of process 20 is denied without prejudice. To obtain a TRO, a plaintiff "must establish that it has some likelihood of success on the merits; that it has no adequate remedy at law; that without relief it will suffer irreparable harm." GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019). If a plaintiff fails to establish one of these threshold requirements, the court must deny the motion. Id. The evidence submitted by plaintiff fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of active infringement as plaintiff failed to file the evidence of the defendant's infringement referenced as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Jay Harvey Paragoso. Without evidence of the defendant's website containing the alleged infringement, there is no evidence of a likelihood of success on the merits against the defendant. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages 19 is granted. Mailed notice |
| 03/09/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motions for reassignment 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are denied. Plaintiff argues that reassignment of these cases is proper under Local Rule 40.4 as related cases. However, joining these cases is not likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort. The Court has already found that the defendants were improperly joined and that no logical relationship exists between the defendants. So, the finding of infringement against each defendant is an independent and individualized determination based on the separate and unrelated evidence of infringement. Whether one defendant infringed on Plaintiff's trademark has no bearing on another defendant's infringement. Therefore, the Court finds that the conditions for reassignment under Local Rule 40.4(b) are not met. While the Court's prior order instructed plaintiff to indicate that a new action against defendants Nos. 2-9 should be filed as related to this matter under Local Rule 40.3(b)(2), upon review of Plaintiff's motions the Court finds Local Rule 40.3(b)(2) does not apply. Local Rule 40.3(b)(2) provides: "When a case is dismissed with prejudice or without, and a second case is filed involving the same parties and relating to the same subject matter, the second case shall be assigned to the judge to whom the first case was assigned." By its terms, the rule applies when a "case" is dismissed, not when some improperly joined defendants are dismissed from an ongoing case. Mailed notice |
| 03/05/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2459 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:(Exhibit B) |
| 03/05/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2457 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/05/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2456 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:(Exhibit B) |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2418 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:(Exhibit B) |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2417 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2413 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2349 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/04/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to reassign case Plaintiff's Motion to Reassign Case No. 26-cv-2348 附件： 1:(Exhibit B) 2:Exhibit A |
| 03/03/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 21 |
| 03/03/2026 | MEMORANDUM by Robert Bosch LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 20 附件： 1:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3 2:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4) 3:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2 4:Declaration Hierl Declaration 5:Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1 6:Exhibit 1 7:Declaration Paragoso Declaration |
| 03/03/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC 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 |
| 03/03/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation |
| 03/02/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Amended Schedule A |
| 03/02/2026 | AMENDED complaint by Robert Bosch LLC against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 02/23/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 15 and determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 10 defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the Court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Overall, the arguments fall short of establishing a logical relationship among the defendants. The Court is not persuaded that any one defendant's infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Similarities between websites, prices, sales tactics, and unauthorized products do not suggest a logical relationship between defendants. Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Further a claim that defendants infringed on its trademark in the same way does not sufficiently link one defendant to another. Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) ("Courts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence."). Even if the Court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, the Court exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense."). Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant Nos. 2-9 without prejudice. The case will proceed against defendant No. 1. If plaintiff files a new action against defendants Nos. 2-9, plaintiff shall indicate on the Civil Cover Sheet that the filed case is related to this matter. See Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Plaintiff's motion to seal 8 is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order by 3/2/2026. Mailed notice |
| 02/12/2026 | MEMORANDUM by Robert Bosch LLC Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder |
| 02/09/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 8 is entered and continued. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of 10 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 2/13/2026, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a single defendant or a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. Mailed notice |
| 02/04/2026 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 02/04/2026 | 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. |
| 02/04/2026 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 02/04/2026 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (lj,) |
| 02/04/2026 | 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. |
| 02/03/2026 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 02/03/2026 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 02/03/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A |
| 02/03/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 02/03/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
| 02/03/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson |
| 02/03/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 02/03/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 02/03/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
| 02/03/2026 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 02/03/2026 | COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24675234. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
