2024-cv-08435 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：GBC
品牌：Poppy Playtime 波比的游戏时间
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 |
| 66 |
07/29/2025
|
ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed on 7/29/2025: 翻译 |
| 65 |
07/29/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, [52], is denied. The Seventh Circuit has found the existence of specific personal jurisdiction in suits against online retailers, but only when the defendant has shipped the allegedly infringing products to the forum state. In NBA Properties v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022), the Seventh Circuit held that specific jurisdiction exists where, "when an order was placed, [the defendant] filled the order, intentionally shipping an infringing product to the customer's designated Illinois address," id. at 624 (emphasis added); see also id. at 625 ("HANWJH knew it could be subject to the jurisdiction of Illinois when it shipped a counterfeit product to the forum."). In Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, 949 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit "held jurisdiction proper where a defendant's website offered the forum state as a 'ship-to' option, the defendant sent a follow-up email confirming orders and shipping addresses, and the defendant sold and shipped products to over 700 residents in the forum," NBA Props., 46 F.4th at 622-23 (emphasis added) (summarizing Curry). Likewise, in Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit found purposeful availment where an online retailer shipped cigarettes to customers in the forum state. See id. at 758. In short, the Seventh Circuit's holdings in NBA Properties, Curry, and Hemi appear to rest on the fact that the defendants actually shipped the allegedly infringing products into the forum state. Plaintiff argues that defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the Illinois forum by accepting orders from Illinois residents. That argument is unpersuasive. Absent shipment of a product into Illinois, defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the Illinois forum. And plaintiff does not argue (and has not presented any evidence) that defendants made the deliberate step of shipping the allegedly infringing products into Illinois. Indeed, plaintiff's attached exhibits indicate that shipment did not occur. For instance, defendant no. 1 Beijing Shengyi Trading Co., Ltd. agreed to ship the product "9 days after full amount collected is credited," but it does not appear that the buyer ever paid the "amount due" ($15.44). [66-1] at 7-8. And for defendant no. 3 Dongguan Dreamer Industrial Co., Ltd., the buyer is still "[w]aiting for suppler to ship." Id. at 19. To the extent defendants accepted payment from plaintiff's Illinois-based investigator (which plaintiff does not argue occurred in this case), defendants' "alleged acceptance of payment from plaintiff's investigator, who provided Illinois shipping addresses for the orders, is not enough to establish purposeful availment." Intersport Corp. v. The Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 25-cv-03483, Dkt. 45 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2025). Furthermore, "conclusory allegations stated only upon 'information and belief,' are insufficient to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant," Cagan v. Gadman, CV 08-3710 (SJF) (ARL), 2009 WL 10712634, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2009) (citation omitted), especially given plaintiff's concession in this case that it cannot ascertain "the facts necessary to have personal knowledge of Defendants' contacts with Illinois," [65] at 8. Because plaintiff has not presented any evidence that defendants shipped the allegedly infringing products into Illinois, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Hotai Ins. Co., Ltd., 938 F.3d 874, 880 (7th Cir. 2019) ("To conclude that personal jurisdiction exists, we need to see evidence that [defendants] reached out to [the forum state] during the formation and execution of these contracts." (emphasis added)). Last, plaintiff argues that personal jurisdiction exists under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). The rule applies only if "the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction." That rules does not apply here because plaintiff has not established that defendants failed to ship the allegedly infringing product to any one of the fifty states, such that all state courts would lack personal jurisdiction over this dispute. Plaintiff's reliance on Rule 4(k)(2) is especially unpersuasive in light of its assertion that defendants "sold Unauthorized Poppy Playtime Product to United States residents"-presumably, residents who live in one of the fifty states. [65] at 9. Thus, plaintiff has not established that Rule 4(k)(2) applies. Because "this Court cannot enter a default judgment against a party over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction," Pardo v. Mecum Auction, Inc., No. 12 C 08410, 2014 WL 627690, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2014), plaintiff's motion for entry of default and for default judgment, [52], is denied. "When a court asked to enter default judgment against a party concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the party, the appropriate procedure is to dismiss sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction." D'Onofrio v. Il Mattino, 430 F. Supp. 2d 431, 438 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (citing In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, the defendants named in the operative schedule A, [63], are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having dismissed all of the defendants in this case, the court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment and terminate this case. 翻译 |
| 64 |
07/02/2025
|
DECLARATION of Trevor C. Talhami regarding other 65 翻译 |
| 63 |
07/02/2025
|
Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief in Support of its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment as to all remaining Defendants by Mob Entertainment, Inc. pursuant to 60 翻译 |
| 62 |
06/27/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend Schedule A to the complaint, 62, is granted. Plaintiff has already filed an amended Schedule A on the docket. 63. Pursuant to this court's order, 60, plaintiff's supplemental brief remains due by 7/2/2025. 翻译 |
| 61 |
06/26/2025
|
AMENDED exhibit[2] Amended Schedule A 翻译 |
| 60 |
06/26/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for Leave to Amend Schedule A to the Complaint Instanter 翻译 |
| 59 |
06/20/2025
|
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6/18/25 before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Order Number: 52197. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings. Redaction Request due 7/11/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/21/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/18/2025. 翻译 |
| 58 |
06/18/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: In-person motion hearing held on 6/18/2025. Defendants did not appear. Plaintiff's supplemental brief is due by 7/2/2025. 翻译 |
| 57 |
06/03/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. regarding terminate motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, [58] 翻译 |
| 56 |
06/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The motion hearing set for 6/12/2025 is stricken. Hearing on plaintiff's motion for default judgment [52] is reset to 6/18/2025 at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 2325. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). 翻译 |
| 55 |
06/02/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, [56] 翻译 |
| 54 |
06/02/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Hearing on plaintiff's motion for default judgment [52] is set for 6/12/2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2325. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2). 翻译 |
| 53 |
05/29/2025
|
STATUS Report Pursuant to [51] by Mob Entertainment, Inc. 翻译 |
| 52 |
05/29/2025
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[53] 翻译 |
| 51 |
05/29/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for default judgment[52] 翻译 |
| 50 |
05/29/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants 翻译 |
| 49 |
05/22/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 5/29/2025, the parties should file a status report with an update on the case. 翻译 |
| 48 |
05/22/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: No defendant has appeared or filed an objection to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment. [39]. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the motion seeks an entry of default against all remaining defendants, the motion is granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Default is entered against the defendants identified in the exhibit to plaintiff's motion for default judgment. [39-1]. However, to the extent the motion seeks default judgment against all remaining defendants, the motion is denied without prejudice. Rule 55 creates a two-step process for default and default judgment. First, a party must seek an entry of default. An entry of default is proper "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend." Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Second, once default is entered, the party seeking a judgment may move for default judgment under Rule 55(b). "Only after default is entered under Rule 55(a) may a party move for default judgment under Rule 55(b)." Holliday v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, No., 2008 WL 4516322, at *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2008). "The two-step process matters. As Rule 55(c) provides, an entry of default can be set aside for good cause, while a default judgment can be set aside only under the provisions of Rule 60(b). Moreover, the good cause standard for setting aside an entry of default is 'liberally applied' in favor of the party who missed its answer deadline; the court favors resolving claims on their merits rather than by default judgment." Day v. Floyd Mem'l Hosp., 2015 WL 13188305, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 2, 2015) (quoting Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for default judgment is premature. To the extent it seeks default judgment, the motion is denied without prejudice. 翻译 |
| 47 |
05/20/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/14/2025, the court ordered defendant Pengli to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 5/2/2025. [47]. Defendant Pengli did not do so. On 5/2/2025, the court sua sponte extended the deadline for defendant Pengli to respond to 5/14/2025. Defendant Pengli still has not filed a response. By 5/21/2025, defendant Pengli must answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint. If defendant Pengli does not do so, the court will proceed to a ruling on the motion for default judgment. 翻译 |
| 46 |
05/07/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/14/25, the court ordered defendant Pengli to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 5/2/25 47. Defendant Pengli did not do so. By 5/14/25, defendant Pengli must answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 45 |
04/14/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Defendant Pengli's unopposed motion for extension of time, [46], is granted. Defendant Pengli must answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 5/2/2025. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, [39], remains under advisement. 翻译 |
| 44 |
04/11/2025
|
MOTION by Defendant Pengli for extension of time UNOPPOSED 翻译 |
| 43 |
04/10/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Pengli by Adam Edward Urbanczyk 翻译 |
| 42 |
04/08/2025
|
STATUS Report Pursuant to 38 by Mob Entertainment, Inc. 翻译 |
| 41 |
04/04/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 42 翻译 |
| 40 |
04/04/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Any defendant objecting to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 39, must enter an appearance and file a written objection by 4/11/2025. If no objections are filed, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice. 翻译 |
| 39 |
04/02/2025
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[40] 翻译 |
| 38 |
04/02/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[39] 翻译 |
| 37 |
04/02/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants 翻译 |
| 36 |
04/01/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/8/2025, plaintiff should file a status report with an update on the status of the case. 翻译 |
| 35 |
03/19/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal, 35, defendant Nos. 58 (A good home store) and 59 (Marvel Charm) are terminated. 翻译 |
| 34 |
03/10/2025
|
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mob Entertainment, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 3/10/2025, answer due 3/31/2025. 翻译 |
| 33 |
03/10/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Mob Entertainment, Inc. as to certain Defendants 翻译 |
| 32 |
03/10/2025
|
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 翻译 |
| 31 |
03/10/2025
|
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. 翻译 |
| 30 |
02/11/2025
|
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025: 翻译 |
| 29 |
02/11/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 28, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order. 翻译 |
| 28 |
02/06/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to unseal certain documents, 29, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the Schedule A to the Complaint 2 and Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Zach Belanger 17. 翻译 |
| 27 |
02/06/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. to unseal document exhibit 2, exhibit 17 翻译 |
| 26 |
02/06/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for discovery Expedited 翻译 |
| 25 |
01/31/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to comply with order, 25, 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 |
| 24 |
01/31/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 24, 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, 22, 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, 24, is denied. 翻译 |
| 23 |
01/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for extension of time to Comply with Order 22 翻译 |
| 22 |
01/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, 22 翻译 |
| 21 |
01/16/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [18], 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. [22]. 翻译 |
| 20 |
01/16/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, [3], and for a temporary restraining order, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery, [13], 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, [13], are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [17], 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 |
| 19 |
10/28/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Trevor Christian Talhami 翻译 |
| 18 |
09/17/2024
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 19 翻译 |
| 17 |
09/17/2024
|
MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18 翻译 |
| 16 |
09/17/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) 翻译 |
| 15 |
09/17/2024
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. Exhibit 4 Parts 1-2 regarding declaration 16 翻译 |
| 14 |
09/17/2024
|
DECLARATION of Zach Belanger regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 翻译 |
| 13 |
09/17/2024
|
DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 14 翻译 |
| 12 |
09/17/2024
|
MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 13 翻译 |
| 11 |
09/17/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery 翻译 |
| 10 |
09/16/2024
|
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. 翻译 |
| 9 |
09/16/2024
|
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. 翻译 |
| 8 |
09/13/2024
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (qrtr,) 翻译 |
| 7 |
09/13/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Jennifer Van Nacht 翻译 |
| 6 |
09/13/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Quinn Bradley Guillermo 翻译 |
| 5 |
09/13/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler 翻译 |
| 4 |
09/13/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio 翻译 |
| 3 |
09/13/2024
|
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Mob Entertainment, Inc. 翻译 |
| 2 |
09/13/2024
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Mob Entertainment, Inc. 翻译 |
| 1 |
09/13/2024
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |