2024-cv-04308 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：GBC
品牌：Oakley欧克利
小提示：专注TRO和解/应诉，需要起诉文件/被告名单/其他帮助可联系我们，微信右上角“···”可全文翻译/分享找队友/订阅可自动推送此案最新进展
微信扫码联系我们
| # | Date | Description |
| 52 |
08/11/2025
|
EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. Amended Schedule A regarding amended complaint, 49 翻译 |
| 51 |
08/11/2025
|
AMENDED complaint by Luxottica Group S.p.A., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc. against jsakgjln, the Individuals and Entities Operating jsakgjln and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 翻译 |
| 50 |
08/08/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiffs' memorandum regarding joinder. 45. Having considered the memorandum and plaintiffs' other filings in this case, the court finds that joinder of the defendants identified in plaintiffs' Schedule A, 36, is improper. Rule 20 allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in an action where (1) "any right to relief is asserted against [the defendants] jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and (2) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, plaintiffs' arguments in support of joinder are unpersuasive for the reasons stated in Hong Kong Leyuzhen Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4947, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2025) and CAO Grp., Inc. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4054, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2025). To cure this deficiency, plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint narrowing the claims down to a subset of defendants that are properly joined. If the amended complaint names multiple defendants, plaintiff must also file a supplemental memorandum establishing that these defendants are properly joined. Plaintiffs' amended complaint and supplemental memorandum are due by 8/22/2025. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint or the court finds that joinder of the defendants named in plaintiffs' amended complaint is improper, the court will dismiss all improperly joined defendants without prejudice. Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, 40, is denied as moot without prejudice to re-filing once plaintiff files an amended complaint. 翻译 |
| 49 |
06/13/2025
|
STATUS Report Pursuant to 39 by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. 翻译 |
| 48 |
06/13/2025
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding Response 45 翻译 |
| 47 |
06/13/2025
|
RESPONSE by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. to text entry, 38 翻译 |
| 46 |
06/03/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 43 翻译 |
| 45 |
06/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 40. Any defendant who opposes default judgment shall appear by 6/10/2025. If no defendants appear and oppose the motion, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendants. 翻译 |
| 44 |
05/30/2025
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion, 41 翻译 |
| 43 |
05/30/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment, 40 翻译 |
| 42 |
05/30/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants 翻译 |
| 41 |
05/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 6/13/2025, plaintiff should file a status report with an update on the status of the case. 翻译 |
| 40 |
05/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 6/13/25 plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). In the alternative, plaintiff may discharge the order by filing an amended complaint with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. 翻译 |
| 39 |
05/06/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, 35, is granted. The amended Schedule A, 36, is now operative. 翻译 |
| 38 |
05/01/2025
|
AMENDED exhibit 2 Amended Schedule A 翻译 |
| 37 |
05/01/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc.for Leave to Amend Schedule A to the Complaint Instanter 翻译 |
| 36 |
03/20/2025
|
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Luxottica Group S.p.A., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 3/20/2025, answer due 4/10/2025. 翻译 |
| 35 |
02/11/2025
|
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 翻译 |
| 34 |
02/11/2025
|
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. 翻译 |
| 33 |
02/11/2025
|
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025: 翻译 |
| 32 |
02/11/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, 27, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order. 翻译 |
| 31 |
02/06/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiffs' motion to unseal certain documents, 28, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the Schedule A to the Complaint 2 and Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Jason Groppe 16. 翻译 |
| 30 |
02/06/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. to unseal document exhibit 2, exhibit, 16 翻译 |
| 29 |
02/06/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for discovery Expedited 翻译 |
| 28 |
01/31/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to comply with order, [24], is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 2/7/2025. 翻译 |
| 27 |
01/31/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, [23], is denied. "While motions to reconsider are permitted. they are disfavored." Patrick v. City of Chicago, 103 F. Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015). "This is a heavy burden for the moving party and makes a motion for reconsideration an inappropriate medium to 'rehash' past arguments[.]" Alice F. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 17-cv-3710, 2019 WL 11626480, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2019) (citation omitted). "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) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not submitted any newly discovered evidence. Thus, plaintiff can prevail only if it demonstrates that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. "A manifest error of law or fact under this standard occurs when a district court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Patrick, 103 F. Supp. 3d at 912 (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff has not shown that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff points out that the court has the power to issue an asset restraint when a plaintiff seeks an accounting and profits in the alternative to statutory damages in its complaint. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (asset freeze was "appropriate" when plaintiff sought statutory damages or equitable relief in the alternative). But simply because a court has the authority to issue an asset freeze in such circumstances does not mean that the plaintiff here is entitled to one. As explained in the prior minute entry, [21], the court is not persuaded that plaintiff intends to actually seek or obtain equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, [23], is denied. 翻译 |
| 26 |
01/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for extension of time to Comply with Order 21 翻译 |
| 25 |
01/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc., Costa Del Mar, Inc. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, 21 翻译 |
| 24 |
01/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 17, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 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. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 21. 翻译 |
| 23 |
01/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, 12, are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 3. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[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." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 3, and for a temporary restraining order, 12, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 2, 16, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025. 翻译 |
| 22 |
12/27/2024
|
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 12/27/2024: Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 21 |
05/29/2024
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 18 翻译 |
| 20 |
05/29/2024
|
MEMORANDUM by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 17 翻译 |
| 19 |
05/29/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) 翻译 |
| 18 |
05/29/2024
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. Exhibit 3 - Parts 1-8 regarding declaration 15 翻译 |
| 17 |
05/29/2024
|
DECLARATION of Jason Groppe regarding memorandum in support of motion 13 翻译 |
| 16 |
05/29/2024
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 13 翻译 |
| 15 |
05/29/2024
|
MEMORANDUM by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 12 翻译 |
| 14 |
05/29/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for temporary restraining order Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Domain Names, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery 翻译 |
| 13 |
05/28/2024
|
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 12 |
05/27/2024
|
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. 翻译 |
| 11 |
05/27/2024
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Two). 翻译 |
| 10 |
05/24/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Thomas Joseph Juettner 翻译 |
| 9 |
05/24/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Berel Yonathan Lakovitsky 翻译 |
| 8 |
05/24/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler 翻译 |
| 7 |
05/24/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio 翻译 |
| 6 |
05/24/2024
|
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. 翻译 |
| 5 |
05/24/2024
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. 翻译 |
| 4 |
05/24/2024
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 3 |
05/24/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. for leave to file under seal 翻译 |
| 2 |
05/24/2024
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiffs Costa Del Mar, Inc., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Oakley, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1] 翻译 |
| 1 |
05/24/2024
|
COMPLAINT filed by Luxottica Group S.p.A., Costa Del Mar, Inc., Oakley, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22022041. 翻译 |