2024-cv-05231 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：David
品牌：匿名版权
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 |
| 14 |
03/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: On 7/3/24, this Court denied Plaintiff's request to proceed via pseudonym and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. See 11. At that time, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend, id. But Plaintiff has declined to do so. As a result, the Court dismisses this case for failure to prosecute. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 13 |
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 |
| 12 |
07/04/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff RC by Stephen Jay Judge 翻译 |
| 11 |
07/03/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated a copyright infringement case against a list of Defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 5. Plaintiff also seeks leave to temporarily seal her complaint, the "Schedule A" listing the named Defendants, and copies of Plaintiff's certificates of copyright registration. Id. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff argues that proceeding pseudonymously and sealing the complaint and Schedule A remains "necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order." 5 at 1. She argues that, if Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, "the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence, the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, and the transfer or disablement of the infringing websites," which would "frustrate the purposes of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." Id. But Plaintiff makes no specific argument about pseudonymity; indeed, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs. Plaintiff does not explain why the requested sealing order (which would prevent defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate the concerns she has identified; nor has she explained why this case is otherwise exceptional. For these reasons, and as this Court has previously held, see Clara McAllister v. The Partnerships, No. 24-cv-01848, at 13 (N.D. Ill. March 18, 2024), the Court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed via pseudonym 5. Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to identify herself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court dismisses her complaint 1 without prejudice and denies without prejudice her requests to seal 5, 9, her motion for TRO 6, and her motion for leave to file excess pages 8. The 7/10/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken. If Plaintiff elects to pursue an amended complaint and revised motions, she should ensure that her pleadings provide a factual and legal basis to join 316 Defendants in a single suit. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). The initial complaint alleged simply that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 2 10. But the conclusion does not necessarily follow the alleged facts; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant has sold infringing products within the State of Illinois, making personal jurisdiction proper, a cursory review of the submitted screenshot evidence fails to support that allegation, see, e.g., [7-4] at 4, 8; [7-7] at 2, 6, 10; [7-13] at 4. Nor does the submitted evidence support the allegation that each Defendant has sold infringing products. The Copyright Act protects particular expressions of ideas, not general ideas, Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089, 109495 (7th Cir. 2013), holding modified by Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2016)), and none of the submitted material shows the particular expression of ideas for which Plaintiff claims protection. As a result, the Court remains unable to discern whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on its infringement claim and thus whether injunctive relief is warranted. See Design Basics, LLC v. Kerstiens Homes & Designs, Inc., 1 F.4th 502, 503 (7th Cir. 2021) ("To establish copyright infringement, Design Basics must prove 'ownership of a valid copyright' and that Kerstiens 'cop[ied] constituent elements of the work that are original'"; "wrongful copying as the lingo goes, 'requires substantial similarities between the defendant's work and protected elements in the plaintiff's copyrighted work.'") (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tele. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Design Basics LLC v. Signature Construction, Inc., 994 F.3d 879, 887-88 (7th Cir. 2021)). If Plaintiff pursues an amended complaint and renewed motions, she must correct these deficiencies, if she can do so consistent with her obligations under Rule 11. Mailed notice 翻译 |
| 10 |
07/01/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff RC to seal document sealed document, [7] 翻译 |
| 9 |
07/01/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff RC for leave to file excess pages 翻译 |
| 8 |
07/01/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff RC for temporary restraining order 翻译 |
| 7 |
06/25/2024
|
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 |
| 6 |
06/25/2024
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). 翻译 |
| 5 |
06/24/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff RC to seal document sealed document 2 翻译 |
| 4 |
06/24/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff RC by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr 翻译 |
| 3 |
06/24/2024
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 2 |
06/24/2024
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff RC Complaint, Ex. 1, and Schedule A 翻译 |
| 1 |
06/24/2024
|
COMPLAINT filed by RC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22172391. 翻译 |