最近更新：2024-12-25
2021-cv-01380
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 07/21/2023 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 05/23/2023 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 03/27/2023 | ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 3/27/2023: Defendant GIDIBII Official Store's motion to vacate default judgment and to dismiss (Dkt. 66) is denied. Nonparty Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd.'s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 77) is denied. See accompanying Statement for details. Mailed notice |
| 12/29/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 11/08/2022 | CERTIFIED copy of order dated 11/8/2022 from the 7th Circuit regarding notice of appeal 76 ; Appellate case no. 22-2956: Upon consideration of the JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, filed on November 7, 2022, by counsel for the appellant, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). |
| 11/08/2022 | MANDATE of USCA dated 11/8/2022 regarding notice of appeal 76 ; USCA No.22-2956 ; No record to be returned. |
| 11/08/2022 | RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause to terminate deadlines and hearings, 82 |
| 11/02/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Respondent Alipay's motion 77 for reconsideration of a portion of the Court's order 74 discussing nonparty standing in Schedule A cases. On the same day as Alipay filed its motion 77 for reconsideration, Alipay also filed a notice 76 of appeal regarding the same order 74. Without considering whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Alipay's appeal (a determination to be made by that court), the law is clear that, "[f]or the most part, the filing of a notice of appeal shifts jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals." United States v. Burton, 543 F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2008). As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, a "federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously," and the "filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance: it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Although a district court "may address ancillary questions such as costs, the registration of judgments, and motions for certificates of probable cause," Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 194 (7th Cir. 1995), the question at issue here (i.e., whether the Court erred in its discussion concerning nonparty standing) does not appear to be ancillary but rather essential to the purported basis of Alipay's appeal before the Seventh Circuit. Moreover, filing the motion 77 for reconsideration simultaneously, or almost simultaneously, with its notice 76 of appeal likely does not save Alipay either. See, e.g., Zuelzke Tool & Eng'g Co., Inc. v. Anderson Die Castings, Inc., 925 F.2d 226, 228 (7th Cir. 1991) (defendant "divested the district court of jurisdiction by filing a simultaneous notice of appeal"). For these reasons, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve Alipay's motion. Alipay is thus directed to show cause via a short, written statement why Alipay's filing of a notice of appeal has not divested this court of jurisdiction. Alipay's statement is due on or before 11/8/2022. Mailed notice |
| 10/31/2022 | ACKNOWLEDGMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding notice of appeal 76 ; USCA Case No. 22-2956 |
| 10/31/2022 | TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 76. Notified counsel |
| 10/31/2022 | NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record regarding notice of appeal 76 |
| 10/28/2022 | Briefing Schedule STATEMENT by Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. |
| 10/28/2022 | MOTION by Respondent Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. for reconsideration regarding order on motion to compel, 74 |
| 10/28/2022 | NOTICE of appeal by Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. regarding orders 74 Filing fee $ 505, receipt number AILNDC-19993207. Receipt number: n |
| 10/20/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 09/29/2022 | ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 9/29/2022: Plaintiff KTM AG's motion (Dkt. 48) to compel nonparty Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. (Alipay) to comply with the Court's final judgment order (Dkt. 46) is dismissed as moot. See accompanying Statement for details. Mailed notice |
| 07/05/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 06/16/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 06/01/2022 | REPLY by GIDIBII Official Store to Response 69 (Defendant No. 42's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss and to Vacate Default Judgment) 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:Exhibit B 3:(Exhibit C) |
| 05/24/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 05/18/2022 | RESPONSE by Plaintiff KTM AG Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Default Judgment 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:Exhibit B 3:(Exhibit C) |
| 04/28/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 04/20/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's motion to dismiss and vacate default judgment 66 : Plaintiff must respond on or before 5/18/2022 and Defendant GIDIBII Official Store must reply on or before6/1/2022. Within one week of filing, each side must provide two paper courtesy copies of their respective briefs to chambers via U.S. Mail or reliable commercial delivery service. Mailed notice |
| 04/15/2022 | MOTION by Defendant GIDIBII Official Store to dismiss, MOTION by Defendant GIDIBII Official Store to vacate default judgment 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:(Exhibit B) |
| 04/15/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant GIDIBII Official Store by Weisun Rao |
| 04/07/2022 | REPLY by Plaintiff KTM AG Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel |
| 04/07/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 04/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for extension of time to file reply 61 is granted. Plaintiff's reply brief in support of its motion to compel 48 must be filed on or before 4/7/2022. Mailed notice |
| 03/31/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff KTM AG for extension of time Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel |
| 03/24/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 03/17/2022 | RESPONSE by Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff KTM AG to compel Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Failure to Comply with Court Order 48 (Corrected) 附件： 1:Declaration of Qinyu Xiang 2:Exhibit A 3:Exhibit B 4:Exhibit C 5:Exhibit D 6:Exhibit E 7:Exhibit F 8:Exhibit G 9:Exhibit H 10:Exhibit I 11:Exhibit J 12:Exhibit K 13:Exhibit L 14:Declaration of Daniel Schwartz 15:Exhibit A to Schwartz Declaration 16:Exhibit B to Schwartz Declaration 17:Exhibit C to Schwartz Declaration 18:Declaration of Xingjian Zhao 19:(Declaration of Murali Pillai) |
| 03/16/2022 | RESPONSE by Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff KTM AG to compel Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Failure to Comply with Court Order 48 附件： 1:Declaration of Qinyu Xiang 2:Exhibit A 3:Exhibit B 4:Exhibit C 5:Exhibit D 6:Exhibit E 7:Exhibit F 8:Exhibit G 9:Exhibit H 10:Exhibit I 11:Exhibit J 12:Exhibit K 13:Exhibit L 14:Declaration of Daniel Schwartz 15:Exhibit A to Schwartz Declaration 16:Exhibit B to Schwartz Declaration 17:Exhibit C to Schwartz Declaration 18:Declaration of Xingjian Zhao 19:(Declaration of Murali Pillai) |
| 03/14/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Respondent Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. by Andrew H. Schapiro |
| 03/14/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is nonparty Alipay's opposed motion 55 for leave to file excess pages in connection with its response to Plaintiff's motion 48 to compel. As a threshold issue, counsel for Alipay has not filed an appearance. Although Local Rule 83.12(a) refers to appearances "on behalf of a party," and Alipay is arguably not a "party" (it can at most be considered a third party), the better course is for any nongovernmental lawyer filing any paper in any case to enter an appearance. Accordingly, counsel for Alipay is directed to file an appearance form (see LR 83.16) on or before 3/18/2022. As to the motion seeking extra pages, Alipay explains that its forthcoming filing "will be Alipay's first opportunity to present any factual or legal discussion in this matter, and the [filing] will also include, among other things, legal and factual discussion of complex issues relating to principles of international comity and personal jurisdiction." Alipay asserts that "five additional pages will be necessary to bring important issues of fact and law to the Court's attention." As other judges have explained, however, "extra pages may not mean stronger argument" and "[a] limitation induces the advocate to write tight prose, which helps his client's cause." Life After Hate, Inc. v. Free Radicals Project, Inc., 334 F.R.D. 413, 414 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (quoting Morgan v. South Bend Community School Corp., 797 F.2d 471, 480-481 (7th Cir. 1986)); see also Quantum, B.V.I. v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., No. 89-cv-7914, 1990 WL 19916, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 1990) ("[I]t is this court's experience that it is very seldom necessary for a memorandum to exceed fifteen pages in order to make all points necessary to the argument of a motion."). Perhaps these decisions echo Churchill's reported admonition that "[i]t is slothful not to compress your thoughts." See Erik Larson, The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz (2020). Although none of the issues raised in the motion to which Alipay is responding 48 is overly complex, and Alipay offers few details in its motion as to why deviating from the "ordinary practice" of "[e]nforcing page limits" is warranted, Life After Hate, 334 F.R.D. at 414 (quoting Watts v. Thompson, 116 F.3d 220, 224 (7th Cir. 1997)), there is irony in Plaintiff's opposition to Alipay's motion. In virtually every "Schedule A" case on this Court's docket, including this one (see Dkt. 7), the plaintiff brand owners seek excess pages for their initial filings. Those requests are routinely granted, as it was here (see Dkt. 22). Even more ironically, because of the initial ex parte nature of the typical Schedule A case, defendants, unlike Plaintiff here, typically never get the chance to oppose Schedule A plaintiffs' requests for excess pages. In the interest of fairness, therefore (the proverbial goose and gander come to mind), and giving Alipay the benefit of doubt, Alipay's motion for leave to file excess pages 55 is granted. Mailed notice |
| 03/14/2022 | MOTION by Respondent Alipay Merchant Services Pte Ltd. for leave to file excess pages |
| 03/07/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 03/04/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 03/02/2022 | SATISFACTION of Judgment |
| 02/15/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: By agreement of the parties, the Court sets the following briefing schedule on Plaintiff's opposed motion to compel 48 : Third-party Alipay must respond on or before 3/16/2022 and Plaintiff must reply on or before 3/31/2022. Within one week of filing, each side must provide two paper courtesy copies of their respective briefs to chambers via U.S. Mail or reliable commercial delivery service. Mailed notice |
| 02/14/2022 | Statement of Briefing Schedule STATEMENT by KTM AG |
| 02/09/2022 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff KTM AG |
| 02/09/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff KTM AG to compel Plaintiff's Motion to Compel for Failure to Comply with Court Order 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:(Exhibit 4) |
| 10/07/2021 | MAILED trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 10/6/2021 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA |
| 10/06/2021 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 10/6/2021.Mailed notice |
| 10/06/2021 | ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 10/6/2021. The ten-thousand-dollar ($10,000) surety bond posted by Plaintiff is herebyreleased to counsel of record for Plaintiff, Michael A. Hierl of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick &Dym, Ltd. at Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60602. Enter separate final judgment order. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice |
| 09/24/2021 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 41 for entry of default and default judgment against all Defendants. All remaining defendants have failed either to plead or to otherwise appear to defend against this action. Accordingly, default is entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any objections to the motion for entry of default judgment must be in writing and must be filed on or before 10/4/2021. If no written objections are filed by that date, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff must serve this minute order upon all remaining Defendants within two business days of its entry on the docket and must file proof of service within three business of service being effected. Mailed notice |
| 09/21/2021 | DECLARATION of Michael A. Hierl regarding motion for default judgment 41 附件： 1:(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1) |
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
