最近更新：2024-12-25
2024-cv-04137
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 09/25/2024 | SATISFACTION of Judgment as to Defendant no. 2 tangcen |
| 08/23/2024 | SATISFACTION of Judgment as to Defendant no. 50 Flawlass Arter |
| 07/31/2024 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/31/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 07/31/2024 | ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 31 is granted. Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction 23 is dismissed as moot. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/31/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 07/31/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Howard Robinson in support of motion for default judgment 31 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:(Declaration of Keith A. Vogt) |
| 07/31/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Howard Robinson for default judgment as to Against the Defendants Identified in First Amended Schedule A |
| 07/31/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to [Certain] defendants |
| 07/22/2024 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to Defendant no. 11 JSTEL |
| 07/12/2024 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Howard Robinson regarding text entry, 26 |
| 07/12/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 23 for entry of a preliminary injunction as to certain Defendants. 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 7/18/2024." 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 orders entering and extending the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), as well as in Plaintiff's earlier motion 20 to extend the TRO, the TRO is further 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. |
| 07/09/2024 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Howard Robinson as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 7/9/2024, answer due 7/30/2024. 附件： 1:(Declaration of Service) |
| 07/09/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Howard Robinson in support of motion for preliminary injunction 23 附件： 1:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt 2:(Exhibit 1, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration) |
| 07/09/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Howard Robinson for preliminary injunction |
| 07/03/2024 | ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/3/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 07/03/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's Motion to extend TRO 20 is granted. Enter separate order. Mailed notice. |
| 07/02/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Howard Robinson for extension of time for Temporary Restraining Order |
| 06/24/2024 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 06/24/2024 | SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/24/2024. |
| 06/24/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 11, motion for leave to file excess pages 12, and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 13, which includes a motion for electronic service of process, are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 14-3 at 6) 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 and 15. 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 it 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 using infringing versions of Plaintiff's copyrighted works 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. |
| 05/22/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable John F. Kness for all further proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). Mailed notice 附件： 1:(Request for reassignment) (ags) |
| 05/21/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Howard Robinson Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Howard Robinson regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14 附件： 1:(Exhibit 2) |
| 05/21/2024 | MEMORANDUM in Support of 13 Exparte Motion 附件： 1:Declaration of Keith A. Vogt 2:Exhibit 1-4, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration 3:Declaration of Howard Robinson 4:(Exhibit 1, of Howard Robinson's Declaration) |
| 05/21/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| 05/21/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Howard Robinson for leave to file excess pages |
| 05/21/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff Howard Robinson for leave to file under seal |
| 05/21/2024 | 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. |
| 05/21/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Yi Bu |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Yanling Jiang |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Monica Rita Martin |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Christopher Romero |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Adam Grodman |
| 05/20/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Howard Robinson by Keith A. Vogt |
| 05/20/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 05/20/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Howard Robinson Schedule A to Complaint 1 |
| 05/20/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Howard Robinson; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21984795. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:Exhibit 2 3:Exhibit 3 4:(Exhibit 4) |
