最近更新：2024-12-25
2022-cv-01434
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 05/16/2024 | FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order, entered judgment 62 in the amount of the Judgment Amount as to certain defendant |
| 02/15/2023 | CONSENT JUDGMENT Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 2/15/2023. Mailed notice. |
| 02/07/2023 | MAILED patent report along with certified copy of order dated 2/6/2023 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 02/06/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: With great reluctance, the Court grants the motion to approve consent judgment (Dckt. No. 72). The Court does so because it will end the case. The Court continues to have significant misgivings, but will enter this consent judgment in the interest of expediency. Consent Judgment to follow. The case is over. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice |
| 02/03/2023 | STATUS Report per 71 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 02/03/2023 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion to approve consent judgment 72 |
| 02/03/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. to approve consent judgment |
| 01/23/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the status report. (Dckt. No. 69) Counsel will have the Rule 26(f) conference this week. The joint initial status report is due by February 3, 2023. Mailed notice |
| 01/23/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for entry of a consent judgment (Dckt. No. 67) is hereby denied without prejudice. Plaintiff asks this Court to enter a consent judgment involving one, and only one, defendant: shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi (Defendant 38). Basically, the parties agreed to settle for $15,000, and they want this Court to enter judgment. In an ordinary case, this Court might consider entering a consent judgment, even though it is not necessary to dismiss a case. The parties could simply file a notice of dismissal or a stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41. But this case is not an ordinary case. It is a Schedule A case. Plaintiff Oakley has filed suit against 40 defendants. And in the past few years alone, Oakley has filed many cases in this district, likely in the dozens. If Plaintiff's counsel got in the habit of filing for entry of a consent judgment, every time they settle with a Schedule A defendant, the wheels would come off the operation. Torrential filings would rain down on the courthouse. So, Plaintiff must come forward with a good reason, meaning a better reason than the one that they have currently offered, if they want this Court to enter a consent judgment. Schedule A cases impose extraordinary burdens, so counsel must make every effort to minimize those burdens on the judiciary. And so far, they haven't. Mailed notice |
| 01/20/2023 | STATUS Report per 66 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 01/20/2023 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion to approve consent judgment 67 |
| 01/20/2023 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. to approve consent judgment as to Defendant shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi (Def. No. 38) |
| 01/17/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendants' motion to vacate the entry of default (Dckt. No. 64) is hereby granted. As Defendants rightly point out, this Court jumped the gun by entering default against Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 on January 10, 2023. After taking another look at the docket, this Court now sees that Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 filed an answer on December 22, 2022. (Dckt. No. 54) So they aren't late after all. But Defendant 38 is late. So, the Court vacates the entry of default against Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37, but not 38. Plaintiff's counsel must file a status report about the remaining defendants by January 20, 2023. Mailed notice |
| 01/12/2023 | CITATION to Discover Assets issued as to Walmart; Amazon; ebay; PayPal Holdings. (Third Party) (No notice filed). |
| 01/13/2023 | MOTION by Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.) to vacate Entry of Default Under Rule 55(a) |
| 01/10/2023 | PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 1/10/2023. Mailed notice. |
| 01/10/2023 | FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 1/10/2023. Mailed notice. |
| 01/10/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against certain defendants (Dckt. No. 48) is hereby granted. The answers are long overdue. The Court enters final judgment against all remaining Defendants except Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38. Final Judgment Order to follow. Permanent Injunction Order to follow. The motion for a preliminary injunction (Dckt. No. 33) is hereby denied as moot. (Maybe it is not technically moot for the six remaining defendants. Even so, a motion for a default judgment or a settlement seems imminent, so the Court denies it in the exercise of its discretion.) Mailed notice |
| 01/10/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: On January 4, 2023, this Court issued an Order granting, for the third time, an extension of time for Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 to answer the complaint. (Dckt. No. 57) This Court set a deadline of January 5, 2023. That deadline has come and gone, and the defendants did not answer. Plaintiff did reach a settlement in principle with Defendant 38 (Dckt. No. 59), but even so, that Defendant missed the deadline, too. The Court hereby enters default against Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 under Rule 55(a). The deadline is the Court's deadline, and parties must respect it. Plaintiff must proceed with alacrity to bring this case to a close, through a motion for default judgment or a notice of dismissal. Mailed notice |
| 01/05/2023 | STATUS Report per 58 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 01/04/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's counsel filed a status report, letting the Court know that Plaintiff has reached a settlement in principle with shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi. (Dckt. No. 56) This Court does not know which Defendant that is. Plaintiff's counsel later added that Plaintiff has settled with Defendants Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd., Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd. The same issue applies to that sentence, too. This Court will not take the time to look, because Plaintiff's counsel did not take the time to tell the Court. Plaintiff's counsel must file an updated status report by January 6, 2023. Mailed notice |
| 01/04/2023 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The third motion for an extension of time to file an answer by Defendants 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 (Dckt. No. 52) is hereby granted in part as follows. The Court grants leave to those Defendants (and only those Defendants) to file an answer by January 5, 2023. All of those Defendants (except Defendant 38) later did so on December 22, 2022. (Dckt. No. 54) The request for expedited discovery is denied. Mailed notice |
| 01/03/2023 | STATUS Report per 51 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 12/29/2022 | ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. |
| 12/22/2022 | ANSWER to Complaint by 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.) |
| 12/22/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.) by Larry Ford Banister, II |
| 12/21/2022 | MOTION by Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.), 38 (shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi) for extension of time to file answer and Limited Expedited Discovery (opposed) 附件： 1:Exhibit Docket 2:Exhibit Complaint 3:Exhibit Civil Cover Sheet 4:(Errata Unreported Case) |
| 12/20/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: By January 3, 2023, Plaintiff must file a status report about settlement discussions with the "certain defendants" who are not covered by the motion for default judgment. The Court directs the parties to have expedited, energetic settlement discussions. Mailed notice. |
| 12/19/2022 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 49 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 12/19/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for default judgment 48 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 12/19/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to Certain Defendants 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 12/13/2022 | CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. regarding order on motion for extension of time, order on motion for entry of default, order on motion for default judgment, text entry, 46 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 12/12/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion for more time filed by certain defendants (#33, 34, 34, 36, 37, and 38) is hereby granted. For those defendants (only), the response to the complaint is due by December 22, 2022. This motion is the second request for an extension. The parties cannot expect the same answer if there is a third. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default (Dckt. No. 43) is hereby granted. The responses to the complaint are late. The Court enters default under Rule 55(a) against all remaining defendants, except the defendants identified in this order. A motion for default judgment is due by December 19, 2022. A response is due by January 5, 2023. Defendants must file a motion if they seek a hearing. Plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order and file a certificate of service. Mailed notice. |
| 12/09/2022 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 44 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 12/09/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 43 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 12/09/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for entry of default as to Certain Defendants, MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to Certain Defendants 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 12/09/2022 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Oakley, Inc. as to certain defendant |
| 12/08/2022 | MOTION by Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.), 38 (shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi) for extension of time (Unopposed) |
| 11/14/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion for extension of time to answer filed by certain defendants (and only those defendants) is hereby granted. (Dckt. No. 38) The Court grants an extension of time to the movants (only) to respond to the complaint. The response to the complaint is due by December 9, 2022. For all other defendants, the response to the complaint is due by November 14, 2022 as previously ordered. (Dckt. No. 35) Mailed notice. |
| 11/14/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.), 38 (shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi) by Charles Edward McElvenny |
| 11/10/2022 | MOTION by Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.), 38 (shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi) for extension of time to file answer |
| 11/10/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants 33 (Shenzhen Ruimiaoqian Network Technology Co.,Ltd), 34 (Shenzhen Weitian Industrial Co., Ltd.), 35 (Shanghai Leiyuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.), 36 (Qingtian Diaocheng Trading Co., Ltd.), 37 (Shenzhen Xiaoyanzifei Network Technology Co., Ltd.), 38 (shenzhenshimeihuidawangluokejiyouxiangongsi) by Lydia Pittaway |
| 10/26/2022 | STATUS Report by Oakley, Inc. |
| 10/24/2022 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" on 10/24/2022, answer due 11/14/2022. 附件： 1:Declaration of Thomas J. Juettner 2:(Exhibit A) |
| 10/24/2022 | DECLARATION of Jake M. Christensen regarding motion for preliminary injunction 33 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 10/24/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for preliminary injunction 附件： 1:(Exhibit A) |
| 10/17/2022 | SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A" |
| 10/17/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Dckt. No. 31) is hereby granted in part. The Court extends the TRO to October 28, 2022. Mailed notice |
| 10/13/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order 附件： 1:(Declaration of Jake M. Christensen) |
| 10/11/2022 | SURETY BOND in the amount of $ 40,000.00 posted by Oakley, Inc. (Document not scanned). |
| 10/11/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (Dckt. No. 28) is hereby granted. Plaintiff needs time to collect the email addresses for the defendants and then effectuate service of process. The Court directs Plaintiff to effectuate service of process by October 24, 2022, and promptly file a proof of service. A status report is due by October 26, 2022. The Court vacates the other dates, and will reset the remaining dates by separate order. Responses to the complaint are due within the time set by the Federal Rules after service of process. Mailed notice |
| 10/05/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for extension of time of Deadlines set in Order 25, MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, order on motion for miscellaneous relief, text entry, 25 附件： 1:(Declaration of Amy C. Ziegler) |
| 10/04/2022 | SEALED TEMPORARY Restraining Order Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 10/4/2022. Mailed notice. |
| 10/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's counsel has gotten into the habit of moving for a temporary restraining order, and then, two weeks later, reflexively filing a motion for a two-week extension of the TRO. Plaintiff's counsel does so as a matter of course, and has gotten too comfortable with that schedule. That bad habit creates extra burden for the Court. It means that this Court has to handle two TRO motions per case. And Plaintiff's counsel has filed hundreds of Schedule A cases in the past two years alone. So, that habit leads to hundreds of extra motions raining down on the federal courthouse, from a single law firm. The Court forewarns Plaintiff's counsel that it is not inclined to grant any extensions, including any extensions of the TRO, so Plaintiff must be prepared to comply. Mailed notice |
| 10/04/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 4) is hereby granted. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. 13) is hereby granted in part. Temporary Restraining Order to follow. For now, the Court is granting an asset freeze. But this Court is inclined to lift the asset freeze at a later time unless Plaintiff later seeks equitable monetary relief (like an accounting of profits) or unless Plaintiff can point this Court to a statute that expressly authorizes an asset freeze in connection with statutory damages. Motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 18) is hereby granted. Plaintiff must effectuate service of process by October 7, 2022. Responses to the complaint are due by October 21, 2022. Motions for default and default judgment are due by October 24, 2022. Responses are due by October 27, 2022. A failure to comply will lead to dismissal. The Court directs counsel to serve a copy of this Order on Defendants, and file a certificate of service. Mailed notice. |
| 08/11/2022 | STATEMENT by Oakley, Inc. per 23 |
| 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. 13). 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 "[c]ourts have the inherent authority to issue a prejudgment asset restraint when plaintiff's complaint seeks relief in equity." 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 |
| 04/15/2022 | STATEMENT by Oakley, Inc. Regarding 21 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 03/28/2022 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: By April 15, 2022, Plaintiff Oakley must file a spreadsheet of all "Schedule A" cases that it has filed in this district in that past five years (that is, since January 1, 2017). The spreadsheet must include case names and case numbers. Plaintiff must submit an Excel version of the spreadsheet to the proposed order inbox. Mailed notice. |
| 03/23/2022 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 19 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:(Exhibit 2) |
| 03/23/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18 |
| 03/23/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 03/23/2022 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 2 regarding declaration 16 |
| 03/23/2022 | DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 03/23/2022 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 2:(Exhibit 2) |
| 03/23/2022 | MEMORANDUM by Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 13 |
| 03/23/2022 | MOTION by Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 03/21/2022 | MAILED Patent report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 03/18/2022 | 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. (jk2,) |
| 03/18/2022 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jk2,) |
| 03/18/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner |
| 03/18/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Jake Michael Christensen |
| 03/18/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler |
| 03/18/2022 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio |
| 03/18/2022 | Notice of Claims Involving Patents by Oakley, Inc. |
| 03/18/2022 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Oakley, Inc. |
| 03/18/2022 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
