最近更新：2024-12-25
2022-cv-03277
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 10/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dckt. No. [14]), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |
| 10/03/2022 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. |
| 09/19/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dckt. No. [7]) is hereby granted. Mailed notice |
| 09/15/2022 | STATUS Report by Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. |
| 08/19/2022 | STATEMENT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd.in Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. for temporary restraining order [5] 附件： 1:Exhibit A 2:Errata Unreported Opinions |
| 08/09/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. 5). The proposed minute order includes a request for an asset freeze. By August 19, 2022, Plaintiff must file a statement and point to the statutory provision that gives this Court the power to impose an asset freeze at the outset of the case. If Plaintiff cannot point to a specific statutory provision, then Plaintiff must address how its request for an asset freeze is consistent with Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In its memo, Plaintiff argues that courts have the "inherent authority to grant Plaintiff's request for a prejudgment asset freeze to preserve the relief Plaintiff is seeking." See Mem., at 12. In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "However, the [Grupo] [C]ourt specifically noted that a restraint on assets was still proper if a suit sought equitable relief." See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Grupo, 527 U.S. at 333; Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 288 (1940)). "[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." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if Plaintiff obtained equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens, if at all. Instead, plaintiffs rush into court, seek and obtain an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. If Plaintiff believes that it is appropriate for this Court to freeze funds at the outset of the case, and then use those funds to recover statutory damages (not equitable monetary relief) at the end of the case, then Plaintiff must explain why. Mailed notice |
| 06/23/2022 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. |
| 06/23/2022 | MAILED SEALED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. Modified on 6/23/2022. |
| 06/23/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. to seal document exhibit 3, exhibit 6 |
| 06/23/2022 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd., Exhibits 1 and 2 to Jing Li Declaration regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. for temporary restraining order 5 |
| 06/23/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd. for temporary restraining order 附件： 1:Declaration of Jing Li 2:Declaration of Adam E. Urbanczyk 3:(Errata Unreported Opinions) |
| 06/23/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by September 12, 2022. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. |
| 06/23/2022 | 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. |
| 06/23/2022 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. |
| 06/23/2022 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd Schedule A, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 regarding complaint 1 |
| 06/23/2022 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 06/23/2022 | COMPLAINT filed by Shenzhen Huajie Technology Co Ltd; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19586897. 附件： 1:(Exhibit Schedule A) |
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
