2025-cv-10833 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：David
品牌：Stephanie Forbes 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 |
| 33 |
12/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Pursuant to the voluntary dismissal 29 the case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 32 |
12/02/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Stephanie Forbes of Doe 1 - PBEI Home 翻译 |
| 31 |
11/12/2025
|
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Stephanie Forbes as to Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 11/12/2025, answer due 12/3/2025. 翻译 |
| 30 |
11/12/2025
|
NEW PARTIES: Pbei home added to case caption. 翻译 |
| 29 |
11/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff intends to serve process by November 14, 2025 and is engaging in settlement communications with Defendant. A status report as to next steps is due by December 12, 2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 28 |
11/12/2025
|
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A 翻译 |
| 27 |
11/12/2025
|
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Pbei home. by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes 翻译 |
| 26 |
11/12/2025
|
SUMMONS - ERROR UNPROCESSED due to second page should be blank. 翻译 |
| 25 |
11/11/2025
|
STATUS Report by Stephanie Forbes 翻译 |
| 24 |
11/11/2025
|
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Pbei home. by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes 翻译 |
| 23 |
11/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff shall file a status report as to the progress of electronic service and as to expedited discovery by November 10, 2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 22 |
10/17/2025
|
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 10/17/2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 21 |
10/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for excess pages [18] and to seal [19] are both granted. The motion for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery and for electronic service [15] is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff may pursue expedited discovery and serve Defendant electronically. It is denied as to a temporary restraining order without prejudice to renewal. According to the memorandum, personal jurisdiction over Defendant Pbei home is proper because Pbei home "targets Illinois residents and has offered to sell, and on information and belief, has sold and continues to sell pirated Forbes Products to consumers within the United States, including the State ofIllinois" [Dkt. 16 at 5-6.] The court doubts this is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, at least without more information. Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 2021 WL 825668, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (no personal jurisdiction over a defendant where only connection to the forum was operating an online marketplace that had "the possibility" of shipping to Illinois). Second, temporary restraining orders are extraordinary and drastic remedies that "should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The party seeking such relief must show: (1) it has some likelihood of success on the merits; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; and (3) it will suffer irreparable harm if the court denies relief. GEFT Outdoors, LLC v. City of Westfield, 922 F.3d 357, 364 (7th Cir. 2019). If each of those factors is met, the Court, employing a sliding scale approach, first weighs the harm the plaintiff will suffer absent an injunction against the harm to the defendant from an injunction, and next considers whether an injunction is in the public interest. Here, Plaintiff's memorandum in support of a TRO does not refer to Defendant Pbei home specifically or by name even once in its 28-page motion; the closest individualized reference appears to be that "Defendant's infringing listing is currently active and selling on the Amazon Platform. See Exhibit 2." [Dkt. 16 at 17.]The filing mostly regurgitates generic arguments about "Defendants" even though this case is only proceeding against one Defendant, Pbei home. "[G]eneric facts alleged in Schedule A cases cannot satisfy Rule 65(b)." Eicher v. The Partnerships, 2025 WL 2299593, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). It is "all but impossible for the Court to discern the likelihood of success from the one-sided evidence provided" and "it is nearly impossible to resolve whether defendant [is] engaged in [unlawful conduct] on such a sparse record," particularly absent adversarial briefing. Id. As for irreparable harm, it is true that damage to a copyright holder's goodwill can constitute irreparable injury for which the owner has no adequate legal remedy and that as a result irreparable harm is generally presumed. Re/Max N. Cent., Inc. v. Cook, 272 F.3d 424, 432 (7th Cir. 2001) (discussed in trademark context). But since generic facts cannot satisfy Rule 65(b), Schedule A plaintiffs should not be entitled to such presumptions. Even assuming that the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and adequate remedy at law factors are met, the court is not persuaded that the Schedule A mechanism satisfies the balance of interests inquiry, or even that the court can properly weigh the interests at stake without Defendant's presence in the case. Nor will the public interest be served by an ex parte ruling. To satisfy interest balancing, the "injunction must do more good than harm (which is to say that the 'balance of equities' favors the plaintiff)." Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009). For the reasons explained in Eicher, Schedule A cases may be more likely to harm the public interest than to favor it. Should Plaintiff renew its request for injunctive relief, the court will review that request with these considerations in mind. Any request for a prejudgment asset restraint, however, is not well taken because such restraints are not to be used to secure assets for collection. Disgorgement is an equitable remedy the court can impose where the defendant "actually holds property or proceeds that belong to the plaintiff which can be returned to the plaintiff." See Cont'l Vineyard LLC v. Dzierzawski, 2018 WL 11195945, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2018). Even in the typical disgorgement of profits scenario, courts are not obligated to impose a prejudgment asset restraint. The decision to do so is discretionary. See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 983 (N.D. Ill. 2024) ("[W]here a plaintiff seeks an equitable remedy like disgorgement, an asset freeze may be appropriate.") Here, the court declines to exercise its discretion in the broad manner requested, particularly considering that imposing a prejudgment asset restraint is likely to encompasses legitimate assets. An asset restraint is not necessary to conduct an accounting; discovery and records of sales can provide any accounting plaintiff may be entitled to. Schedule A plaintiffs rarely pursue an actual accounting as a remedy and rarely justify requests for statutory damages by reference to actual sales figures, lost profits, or the like. Instead, counsel typically ask for statutory damages based on notions of deterrence without case-specific factual support justifying the number. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 20 |
10/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes to seal document memorandum in support of motion, [16] 翻译 |
| 19 |
10/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes for leave to file excess pages 翻译 |
| 18 |
10/17/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff 翻译 |
| 17 |
10/17/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Stephanie Forbes in support of motion for temporary restraining order[15] 翻译 |
| 16 |
10/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes for temporary restraining order 翻译 |
| 15 |
10/09/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff can proceed on its amended complaint. Any motion for electronic service of process or request for early discovery should be filed by October 16, 2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 14 |
10/08/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes Revised Schedule A 翻译 |
| 13 |
10/01/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder [Dkt. [11]] and determines, within its discretion, that it has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of more than 40 defendants is proper in this matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Plaintiff argues that joinder is proper because all Defendants appear to operate in the same geographic region, share a common set of wholesale distributors and/or counterfeit sources, share common platforms for their infringing listings/sales, share financial institutions, and employsimilar methods for obscuring the source of their goods and their identities. The court is not persuaded that any one defendant's infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Even if the court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, it exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (rejecting joinder of 216 defendants, noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [the plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense.") Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint listing one Defendant by no later than October 8, 2025. Any motion for electronic service of process order should also be submitted by October 8, 2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 12 |
09/30/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes 翻译 |
| 11 |
09/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for an extension of time [9] is granted. Any memorandum as to joinder is now due by September 30, 2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 10 |
09/16/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes for extension of time to file Memorandum in Support of Joinder 翻译 |
| 9 |
09/09/2025
|
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC 翻译 |
| 8 |
09/10/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court grants the motion to seal [6], but upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 45 defendants in a single action. By September 16, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by September 16, 2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 7 |
09/09/2025
|
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 |
| 6 |
09/09/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes to seal document sealed document[2] 翻译 |
| 5 |
09/09/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT of David Lee Gulbransen, Jr as U.S. Attorney for Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes 翻译 |
| 4 |
09/09/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr 翻译 |
| 3 |
09/09/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 2 |
09/09/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Stephanie Forbes Schedule A to Complaint 翻译 |
| 1 |
09/09/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by Stephanie Forbes; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24035426. 翻译 |