最近更新：2025-03-09
2025-cv-20476
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 02/19/2025 | Order |
| 02/13/2025 | RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re [12] Order to Show Cause, by Tottenham Hotspur Limited. |
| 02/06/2025 | ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 2/6/2025. See attached document for full details. |
| 02/06/2025 | PAPERLESS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. Plaintiff filed its Complaint 1 alleging (1) trademark counterfeiting and infringement and (2) false designation of origin, against a list of four (4) Defendants in Schedule A. See generally (ECF No. 1); (ECF No. 9). 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 allowed to proceed without careful and independent judicial scrutiny as to whether Plaintiff has properly joined Defendants. Accordingly, the court sua sponte addresses the issue of whether joinder of these Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is proper, and also questions as a practical matter whether Plaintiff should 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 four 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). It is also not clear that any relief sought against Defendants is joint and several. The Court points Plaintiff 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 particularly 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 four (4) Defendants. See also Taylor et al v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A, No. 0:22-cv-61279-KMM (S.D. Fla. July 27, 2022) (asserting trademark infringement action against 859 defendants).Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before February 20, 2025 as to why the Court should not sever and dismiss without prejudice the Defendants in Schedule A following the first named Defendant and require the refiling of separate actions and payment of separate filing fees as those Defendants. Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/6/2025. (cr00) |
| 02/05/2025 | Order |
| 02/03/2025 | ORDER granting [5] Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/3/2025. See attached document for full details. (cr00) |
| 02/03/2025 | PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Elfenbein's discovery procedures. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/3/2025. (cr00) |
| 02/03/2025 | PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. The parties are hereby on notice that this Court requires all filings to be formatted in 12 point Times New Roman font and double spaced, including any footnotes, with one inch margins on all sides. Failure to follow these formatting guidelines may result in the filing being stricken, any opposing filing being granted by default, and the imposition of other sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. The parties shall seek extensions of time in a timely fashion. "A motion for extension of time is not self-executing. Yet, by filing these motions on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this." Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three (3) days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court. Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 2/3/2025. (cr00) |
| 01/31/2025 | Plaintiff's MOTION to Seal per Local Rule 5.4 by Tottenham Hotspur Limited. 附件： 1:Text of Proposed Order |
| 01/31/2025 | Plaintiff's Corporate Disclosure Statement by Tottenham Hotspur Limited identifying Corporate Parent ENIC Sports Inc., Corporate Parent ENIC Group for Tottenham Hotspur Limited |
| 01/31/2025 | FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK. 附件： 1:Complaint |
| 01/31/2025 | 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 Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein 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. |
| 01/31/2025 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filing fees $ 405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-18169591, filed by Tottenham Hotspur Limited. 附件： 1:(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
