最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-00114
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 11/04/2024 | SATISFACTION of Judgment as to defendant no. 102 Star cottage technology |
| 07/04/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to defendant no. 29 GGS TIN SIGN SHOP |
| 06/26/2024 | SATISFACTION of Judgment as to [certain] defendants |
| 06/23/2024 | SATISFACTION of Judgment as to [Certain] defendants |
| 06/20/2024 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/20/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 06/20/2024 | ORDER: Plaintiff's motion [26] for entry of default judgment is granted. Plaintiff's motion [19] seeking the entry of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Enter separate final judgment order. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/20/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 06/21/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant DZ ART-US by Timothy Tiewei Wang |
| 06/12/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Sandra E. Kuck in support of motion for default judgment 26 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:(Declaration of Keith A. Vogt) |
| 06/12/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck for default judgment as to Against the Defendants Identified in First Amended Schedule A |
| 06/12/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to [certain] defendants |
| 05/24/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck regarding text entry, 23 |
| 05/24/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 19 for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all Defendants with the following statement: "The Court has taken the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no Defendant appears and objects on or before 5/30/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's order entering the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the TRO is extended to and including the date on which the Court adjudicates the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 843-45 (7th Cir. 2012). Because this extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." Id. at 844. Mailed notice |
| 05/21/2024 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 10,000 posted by Sandra E. Kuck. (Document not Imaged) |
| 05/21/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Sandra E. Kuck as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 5/21/2024, answer due 6/11/2024. 附件： 1:(Declaration of Service) |
| 05/21/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Sandra E. Kuck in support of motion for preliminary injunction 19 附件： 1:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt 2:(Exhibit 1, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration) |
| 05/21/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck for preliminary injunction |
| 05/15/2024 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 05/14/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 5/14/2024. |
| 05/14/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 12, ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and other relief 14, and motion for leave to file excess pages 13 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 15) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2, 14, and 16. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that she may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products that infringe Plaintiff's copyrights to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. |
| 01/05/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Sandra E. Kuck regarding memorandum in support of motion, 15 附件： 1:Exhibit 2-1 2:(Exhibit 2-2) |
| 01/05/2024 | MEMORANDUM in support of 14 Exparte motion 附件： 1:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt 2:Exhibit 1-4, of Keith A. Vogt's declaration 3:Declaration of Sandra E. Kuck 4:(Exhibit 1, of Sandra E. Kuck's declaration) |
| 01/05/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck for leave to file excess pages |
| 01/05/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck for leave to file under seal |
| 01/05/2024 | MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. |
| 01/04/2024 | 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. |
| 01/04/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Christopher Romero |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Monica Rita Martin |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Adam Grodman |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Yi Bu |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Yanling Jiang |
| 01/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck by Keith A. Vogt |
| 01/04/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 01/04/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Sandra E. Kuck Schedule A to Complaint 1 |
| 01/04/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Sandra E. Kuck; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21487496. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:(Exhibit 4) |
