最近更新：2024-12-25
2022-cv-61279
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 08/01/2023 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by Simon Le Bon, Nicholas Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor. Attorney Javier Sobrado added to party Simon Le Bon(pty:pla), Attorney Javier Sobrado added to party Nicholas Rhodes(pty:pla), Attorney Javier Sobrado added to party John Taylor(pty:pla), Attorney Javier Sobrado added to party Roger Taylor(pty:pla). |
| 03/03/2023 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 8 Order to Show Cause, Order Dismissing/Closing Case, by Roger Taylor, Nicholas Rhodes, Simon Le Bon, John Taylor. |
| 03/01/2023 | FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK |
| 02/28/2023 | PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiffs filed this case on July 8, 2022 and, to date, they have not requested a summons for or served any of the 859 Defendants named in Schedule A of the Complaint. See [1]. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court--on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff--must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). "But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Id. More than seven months have passed since Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, and a review of the docket reveals that, to date, Plaintiffs have not served any Defendant. Accordingly, this case shall be dismissed without prejudice unless Plaintiffs can show good cause for their failure to serve Defendants on or before March 3, 2023. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to ADMINSTRATIVELY CLOSE this case pending receipt of Plaintiffs' response to this Order. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/28/2023. |
| 02/06/2023 | PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. 6. Therein, Nicole Fundora moved to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiffs. Id. Nicole Fundora states that Plaintiffs will continue to be represented in this action by the remaining counsel of record. UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel 6 is GRANTED. Nicole Fundora shall be relieved of all further responsibilities related to Plaintiff in these proceedings. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/6/2023. |
| 02/02/2023 | Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Nicole Fundora for / by Simon Le Bon, Nicholas Rhodes, John Taylor, Roger Taylor. Responses due by 2/16/2023 附件： 1:Text of Proposed Order |
| 08/05/2022 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 4 Order to Show Cause, by Roger Taylor, Nicholas Rhodes, Simon Le Bon, John Taylor. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:(Exhibit 3) |
| 07/27/2022 | PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint 1 alleging (1) trademark counterfeiting and infringement pursuant to § 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114; (2) false designation of origin pursuant to § 43(A) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (3) common law unfair competition; and (4) common law trademark infringement against a list of Defendants in Schedule A attached to the Complaint. Id. at 18-22; see generally [1-2]. Schedule A is sixteen (16) pages long and contains 859 purported "Defendants" -- or, rather, 859 line entries in a table consisting of company names and URLs. [1-2]. The Complaint does not allege or seek certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Trademark infringement actions such as this have become increasingly prevalent in the Southern District of Florida in recent years, and have routinely been permitted. However, the Court is skeptical that joinder of these Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is proper, and also questions as a practical matter whether Plaintiffs should continue to be permitted to skirt paying the filing fee for each individual Defendant. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 186 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ("[I]t is appropriate for federal courts to raise improper joinder on their own, especially when the sheer number of defendants waves a joinder red flag and ups the chances that the plaintiff should be paying separate filing fees for separate cases."). "On motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. As it pertains to joinder of Defendants, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) provides, in relevant part: "Persons--as well as a vessel, cargo, or other property subject to admiralty process in rem--may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action."Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (emphasis added). "The district court has broad discretion to join parties or not and that decision will not be overturned as long as it falls within the district court's range of choices." Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253 (11th Cir. 2002). Here, while there may well be common questions of law and fact as to some or all Defendants, it is not at all clear from the Complaint how the 897 Defendants' alleged infringement "aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). The Court points Plaintiffs to its prior Order in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC v. BitTorrent Swarm, 277 F.R.D. 672 (S.D. Fla. 2011), as well as the Northern District of Illinois' memorandum opinion and order in Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020), which, while not binding on this Court, is extremely persuasive. Notably, in Liberty Media Holdings, LLC the Court severed and dismissed seventeen (17) defendants as improperly joined. The Estee Lauder court addressed the improper joinder of seventy-nine (79) defendants. Again, the instant action alleges trademark infringement against 859 Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before August 5, 2022 as to why the Court should not sever and dismiss without prejudice the 858 Defendants in Schedule A [1-2] following the first named Defendant, YuJiebolaide at https://www.amazon.com/sp?seller=A3UUDA6NGWRP9S, and require the refiling of separate actions and payment of separate filing fees. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/27/2022. |
| 07/08/2022 | FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK |
| 07/08/2022 | Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. |
| 07/08/2022 | COMPLAINT against The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A. Filing fees $ 402.00 receipt number AFLSDC-15775691, filed by Roger Taylor, Nicholas Rhodes, Simon Le Bon, John Taylor. 附件： 1:Exhibit Exhibit 1- federal trademark registrations 2:Exhibit Schedule A to Complaint identifying Defendants 3:(Civil Cover Sheet) |
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
