2025-cv-04947 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
品牌：Rotita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 |
| 35 |
09/24/2025
|
SUPPLEMENT to text entry, [31] on Personal Jurisdiction in Compliance with Docket 31 翻译 |
| 34 |
09/18/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, [30] in Compliance with Docket 30 翻译 |
| 33 |
09/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental brief (not to exceed 10 pages) by 9/24/2025, explaining the basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant. On 9/15/2025, plaintiff moved for entry of default and default judgment against defendant. [29]. "Before a court can enter a default judgment, however, it must be satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Simonsen v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, No. 01 C 3081, 2002 WL 230777, at *15 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2002) (citation omitted). That is 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); see also Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Does 1-55, No. 11-cv-10, 2011 WL 2036454, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011) ("To enter a default judgment against one or more of the Defendants, the Court must have personal jurisdiction." (citing Relational, LLC v. Hodges, 627 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2010))); Barry v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 410 F.Supp.3d 161, 171 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2019) ("The court must also 'satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent defendant.'" (quoting Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1, 6-7 (D.C. Cir. 2005))). The Seventh Circuit has, in some cases, found the existence of specific personal jurisdiction in trademark, copyright, and patent infringement suits against online retailers, but only when the defendant has shipped the allegedly infringing products to the forum state. See, e.g., NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2022); Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 399 (7th Cir. 2020); Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 758 (7th Cir. 2010). Absent fulfillment and shipment of an order into the forum state, the operation of an "interactive" online storefront is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."). Here, the complaint alleges that "Defendant directly targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through at least the fully interactive commercial internet stores operating under the Defendant alias and/or the Alibaba online marketplace account (the "Defendant Internet Store"). Specifically, Defendant is reaching out to do business with Illinois residents by operating one or more commercial, interactive internet stores through which Illinois residents can purchase products bearing infringing versions of Plaintiff's copyrighted work." [22] para. 2; see also id. para. 14 ("Defendant has offered to sell and ship infringing products into this judicial district."), id. para. 23. However, "displaying products online that are shippable to Illinois amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois. That alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction." Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule A, No. 20-cv-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) ("The maintenance of an interactive website, without more, is insufficient to vest a court with personal jurisdiction."). Further, the complaint alleges that defendant, "Defendant has targeted Illinois residents by operating online stores that offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars and, on information and belief, has sold products bearing infringing versions of Plaintiff's federally registered copyrighted work to residents of Illinois." [22] para. 2; see also id. para. 23-24, 31. However, "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). 翻译 |
| 32 |
09/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, [29]. If defendant objects to the entry of default judgment, it shall file a response by 9/24/2025. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on defendant. 翻译 |
| 31 |
09/15/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for default judgment as to Defendant Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co., Ltd 翻译 |
| 30 |
08/21/2025
|
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited as to Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co. Ltd. on 8/21/2025, answer due 9/11/2025. 翻译 |
| 29 |
08/07/2025
|
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 8/7/2025: 翻译 |
| 28 |
08/07/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, [23], is granted in part and denied in part. First, the motion is denied insofar as it seeks a temporary restraining order. Plaintiff seeks entry of an ex parte temporary restraining order. However, his attorney has not "certifie[d] in writing any efforts made to give notice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court will not enter an ex parte temporary restraining order. Second, the motion is granted insofar as it seeks expedited discovery. Enter order. 翻译 |
| 27 |
07/07/2025
|
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co. Ltd. 翻译 |
| 26 |
07/03/2025
|
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co., Ltd. by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited 翻译 |
| 25 |
07/03/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for temporary restraining order and Expedited Discovery RENEWED 翻译 |
| 24 |
06/17/2025
|
FIRST AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against Shenzhen Yilanya Technology Co. Ltd. and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto 翻译 |
| 23 |
06/03/2025
|
ORDER re Misjoinder Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 6/3/2025: Plaintiff has until 6/17/2025, to file an amended complaint narrowing the claims down to a subset of defendants that are properly joined. 翻译 |
| 22 |
05/23/2025
|
RESPONSE to Order to Show Cause to text entry, [16] 翻译 |
| 21 |
05/15/2025
|
AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto 翻译 |
| 20 |
05/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [12], 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. [17]. 翻译 |
| 19 |
05/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, [4], and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, [14] 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 [14]. "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 motion for leave to file under seal, [4], and for a temporary restraining order, [14], are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [5], are stricken. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, [13], is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 5/15/2025. 翻译 |
| 18 |
05/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 5/24/2025, 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, trademark, or patent 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). 翻译 |
| 17 |
05/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [4], is 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. Id. at 1. "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. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, [4], is therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [5], are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file an unredacted version of its complaint publicly on the docket by 5/15/2025. 翻译 |
| 16 |
05/07/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for temporary restraining order 翻译 |
| 15 |
05/07/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for leave to file excess pages for Temporary Restraining Order 翻译 |
| 14 |
05/07/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication and Electronic Service 翻译 |
| 13 |
05/06/2025
|
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC 翻译 |
| 12 |
05/06/2025
|
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 |
05/06/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). 翻译 |
| 10 |
05/05/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Gokalp Bayramoglu 翻译 |
| 9 |
05/05/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Nihat Deniz Bayramoglu 翻译 |
| 8 |
05/05/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joseph Wendell Droter 翻译 |
| 7 |
05/05/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn 翻译 |
| 6 |
05/05/2025
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited 翻译 |
| 5 |
05/05/2025
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of K. Kuhn regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal [4] 翻译 |
| 4 |
05/05/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal 翻译 |
| 3 |
05/05/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 2 |
05/05/2025
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Complaint regarding complaint, [1] 翻译 |
| 1 |
05/05/2025
|
COMPLAINT for Copyright Infringement filed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23442146. 翻译 |