最近更新：2025-01-17
2024-cv-12480
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 01/10/2025 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[39] |
| 01/10/2025 | MEMORANDUM by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 38 |
| 01/10/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 01/10/2025 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited Exhibit 2 - Part 1 regarding declaration[36] |
| 01/10/2025 | DECLARATION of Susanne Teixeira regarding memorandum in support of motion[34] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 01/10/2025 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[34] |
| 01/10/2025 | MEMORANDUM by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited in support of motion for temporary restraining order[33] |
| 01/10/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 01/10/2025 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited Amended Schedule A regarding amended complaint[31] |
| 01/10/2025 | AMENDED complaint by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 01/08/2025 | ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 1/8/2025. Mailed notice. |
| 01/08/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this Court's order [26]. "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). And the "[d]isposition of a motion for reconsideration is left to the discretion of the district court." Id. at 1270 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2020 WL 13506297, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2020) ("District courts enjoy broad discretion to entertain motions to reconsider prior decisions."). As a threshold issue, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs have identified newly discovered evidence or a manifest error of law or fact within the Court's order [25]. Plaintiffs argue the Court should reconsider its prior order denying Plaintiffs' motion to seal and for an asset restraint because (1) the Court is authorized to order an asset restraint and (2) Plaintiffs are seeking equitable relief through the disgorgement of Defendants' profits. Mot. at 5. Plaintiffs also argue the Court has authority to transfer funds that are restrained post-judgment, even if Plaintiffs have not yet decided on damages. Id. at 8. In the alternative to a total restraint on accounts tied to Defendants' e-commerce stores, Plaintiffs ask the Court to authorize an asset restraint limited to the assets attributable to Defendants' infringing conduct. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs do not purport to submit newly discovered evidence as a basis for reconsideration. Thus, the Court understands Plaintiffs' argument to be that the Court's decision denying the motion to seal and asset restraint was a manifest error of law or fact. As the Court stated in its Order, in its experience with myriad Schedule A cases, although Plaintiffs almost always request equitable relief as a possible remedy, in almost every Schedule A case, Plaintiffs end up requesting statutory damages at the end of the case. Order at 4-5. But Plaintiffs have done enough, if barely, in their motion to reconsider to convince the Court that, because Plaintiffs do seek an accounting of profits (that is, disgorgement of profits) under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), an asset freeze is warranted. See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2013). As the Deckers court noted, "where equitable relief is sought, the appropriate scope of prejudgment restraint must be limited only to what is reasonably necessary to secure the (future) equitable relief"here, that would be the amount of Defendants' profits resulting from its alleged counterfeit sales. Id. Since Defendants have not yet appeared, Plaintiffs have no discovery, so it is difficult, if not impossible, for Plaintiffs to know Defendants' profits. Therefore, the Court will adopt Plaintiffs' alternative proposal to restrain and enjoin any such accounts or funds from transferring or disposing of money or other of Defendants' assets that are traceable to the proceeds of sales of products using infringing and counterfeit versions of Plaintiffs' federally registered trademarks (Counterfeit Products) until further order of this Court, or the expiration of this Order, whichever is earlier. Upon a showing that restrained assets are not attributable to the sale of Counterfeit Products, the Court will modify the asset restraint. See Mot. at 10. However, the Court acknowledges that, due to the lack of discovery at this stage, the restraint will function as a complete asset restraint. Given the asset-restraint goal, and for the reasons described herein, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to reconsider [26] and provisionally grants the motion for leave to file under seal [3]. However, for the reasons described in the accompanying Order, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for misjoinder. Plaintiff has until 01/21/2025 to file an amended complaint naming one defendant or a group of properly joined defendants. If the latter, Plaintiff must also file a memorandum explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. The Court denies all other pending motions [14], [19], and [27], as moot. Mailed notice. |
| 12/20/2024 | 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 Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/20/2024: Mailed notice. |
| 12/11/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for extension of time to Comply with Order 25 |
| 12/11/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for reconsideration regarding order 25 |
| 12/10/2024 | ORDER: Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 12/10/2024. Mailed notice. |
| 12/10/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [3]. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in "Schedule A" to the Complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying order, the Court denies the motion [3]. On or before 12/17/2024, Plaintiff is directed to file the provisionally sealed documents [2] and [18] publicly on the docket and to add ALL Defendant names listed in the Schedule A to the docket. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal. Mailed notice. |
| 12/09/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum[22] 附件： 1:Exhibit 8 2:Exhibit 7 3:Exhibit 6 4:Exhibit 5 5:Exhibit 4 6:Exhibit 3 7:Exhibit 2 8:Exhibit 1 |
| 12/09/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited Establishing that Joinder is Proper |
| 12/09/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[20] |
| 12/09/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[19] |
| 12/09/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) |
| 12/09/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited Exhibit 2 - Parts 1-2 regarding declaration[17] |
| 12/09/2024 | DECLARATION of Susanne Teixeira regarding memorandum in support of motion[15] 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
| 12/09/2024 | DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[15] |
| 12/09/2024 | MEMORANDUM by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited in support of motion for temporary restraining order[14] |
| 12/09/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery |
| 12/06/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case reassigned to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama for all further proceedings pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 294(b). Mailed notice. |
| 12/05/2024 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. |
| 12/05/2024 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 12/05/2024 | 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. |
| 12/05/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 12/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited by Yu Hin Jeffrey Tsai (Tsai, Yu Hin) |
| 12/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited by Trevor Christian Talhami |
| 12/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited by Amy Crout Ziegler |
| 12/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited by Justin R. Gaudio |
| 12/04/2024 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited |
| 12/04/2024 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited |
| 12/04/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 12/04/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited for leave to file under seal |
| 12/04/2024 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited Schedule A regarding complaint[1] |
| 12/04/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by Spin Master Ltd., Spin Master Toys UK Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22801075. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 |
