2025-cv-14938 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：Bayramoglu Law
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 |
| 25 |
01/08/2026
|
NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion to unseal case[22] before Honorable April M. Perry on 1/14/2026 at 10:00 AM. 翻译 |
| 24 |
01/08/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to unseal case 翻译 |
| 23 |
01/08/2026
|
SUPPLEMENT to order on motion for service by publication, terminate hearings, [20] Schedule A Template 翻译 |
| 22 |
01/06/2026
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service and expedited discovery [18] is taken under advisement. The Court will not consider this motion until Plaintiff completes the Court's Schedule A Template, which was due on December 29, 2025, and which Plaintiff was reminded to complete on December 30, 2025. The Court strikes the motion hearing set for January 8, 2026. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to file a motion to seal Docket 16 as is required by Local Rule 26.2. The Court sees no reason why this exhibit is subject to seal because the identity of the Defendant is now available on the public docket. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion to seal within two business days with an explanation of why [16] should be sealed, or in the alternative to file a motion to unseal the exhibit. Mailed notice. (jcc,) 翻译 |
| 21 |
01/05/2026
|
NOTICE of Motion by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn for presentment of motion for service by publication, [18] before Honorable April M. Perry on 1/8/2026 at 10:00 AM. 翻译 |
| 20 |
01/05/2026
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited for service by publication, Electronic Service and Expedited Discovery 翻译 |
| 19 |
12/31/2025
|
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 12/31/2025: Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 18 |
01/02/2026
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Complaint regarding amended complaint, [15] 翻译 |
| 17 |
01/02/2026
|
First AMENDED complaint by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited, Jinhua Younamei Trading Co. Ltd against Jinhua Younamei Trading Co. Ltd 翻译 |
| 16 |
12/31/2025
|
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 12/31/2025: Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 15 |
12/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion in support of joinder [12] and finds that Plaintiff has not adequately established proper joinder of all 13 defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). Under Rule 20(a)(2), joinder of multiple defendants is proper if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the claims are "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and (2) there is a "question of law or fact common to all defendants." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)(B). In assessing Plaintiff's arguments in support of joinder, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true but will not credit mere speculation or conclusory allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 797 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff at this stage does "not need to allege facts that definitively establish a link among the defendants; [it] need only allege facts that plausibly establish such a connection." Bug Art v. Schedule A Defs., No. 24-cv-07777, Doc. 28 at 5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2024). Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing any plausible connection between any of the defendants in this case. First, this Court specifically directed Plaintiff to consider its prior opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where this Court expressed its views of joinder on almost identical facts [11]. However, Plaintiff's memorandum at no point provides an analysis of joinder based on the principles outlined in Zaful, and in fact does not even cite Zaful. Instead, Plaintiff entirely relies on the reasoning outlined by a different court in in Bose Corp. v. Schedule A Defs., 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2020), which reasoning this Court in Zaful explicitly refused to adopt. Plaintiff's argument relies on the existence of some type of "swarm" relationship between all 13 defendants, specifically because they target the same seasonal collection, operate on the same sales platform during the same period to exploit the same market, and employ the same anonymity mechanisms. Doc. 12 at 6-7. This Court incorporates its reasoning from Zaful in finding joinder improper. Multiple defendants targeting the same copyright shows the defendants are copycats, not co-conspirators. Zaful, 2025 WL 71797, at *4 ("And, to the extent they were copying their 'competition,' how does this demonstrate 'coordination' among them?"). The mere fact that all 13 defendants operated at the same time on Alibaba, which is one of the largest e-commerce platforms in the world, also does not support any logical relationship between them. Id. at *5 ("As far as this Court can tell, no court has found joinder appropriate just because the defendants used the same website to infringe."). And using the same anonymity mechanisms common to all infringers is also not evidence of coordination. Id. ("All of these facts support a finding of someone willfully violating the law who does not want to be caught, but none support a finding of coordination amongst the offenders. If the Defendants had similar corporate names, email addresses, or matching fake (or real) addresses, then Plaintiff would have a point that is not the case here."). Additionally, Plaintiff's memorandum in support of joinder does not contain the defendant-by-defendant analysis the Court requested or, indeed, any defendant-specific references at all. See Doc. 11 (instructing Plaintiff to explain "why each defendant is properly joined to all of the other defendants"). Plaintiff apparently expects the Court to comb through the 129 pages of unlabeled screenshots it has attached as an exhibit, without anywhere in its memorandum analyzing or citing to examples in the exhibits demonstrating the alleged commonalities between the 13 defendants. Doc. 12-2. Plaintiff's expectation that the Court will do its work for it is exactly the reason that joinder does not promote judicial economy. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against one defendant by 1/13/2026, or the entire case will be dismissed without prejudice. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not timely filed the Court's Schedule A template, despite having been instructed to do so by 12/29/2025. Mailed notice. (jcc,) 翻译 |
| 14 |
12/29/2025
|
SUPPLEMENT to order on motion to seal, set deadlines, [11] Supplemental Memorandum in support of Joinder in compliance with Docket 11 翻译 |
| 13 |
12/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's Motion to Seal [4] is granted in part. The Court allows Plaintiff to file Doc. 2-1 and Doc. 2-2 under seal, but denies the sealing of Plaintiff's copyright registrations in Doc. 2 (Ex. 1) because Plaintiff's copyright registrations are already known to the public. It appearing that the case filed is a "Schedule A" case, Plaintiff is directed to the Court's standing order on its website directing the filing of the Court's Schedule A Template within 14 days. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) of joining 13 defendants to this action. See, e.g, Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff is reminded that "[c]ourts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps, Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Plaintiff should also reference this Court's opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where the Court expressed its views on joinder in Schedule A cases. By 12/29/2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described above and explaining why each defendant is properly joined to all of the other defendants. In the alternative, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 12/29/2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. To the extent Plaintiff intends to file a request for service via electronic means, that motion must be filed by 1/6/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) 翻译 |
| 12 |
12/10/2025
|
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. 翻译 |
| 11 |
12/09/2025
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Katherine M. Kuhn regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal [4] 翻译 |
| 10 |
12/10/2025
|
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 |
| 9 |
12/10/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable April M. Perry. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). 翻译 |
| 8 |
12/09/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu 翻译 |
| 7 |
12/09/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Joseph Wendell Droter 翻译 |
| 6 |
12/09/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn 翻译 |
| 5 |
12/09/2025
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited 翻译 |
| 4 |
12/09/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited to seal 翻译 |
| 3 |
12/09/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 2 |
12/09/2025
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited Exhibit 1 to the Complaint regarding complaint, [1] 翻译 |
| 1 |
12/09/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24452326. 翻译 |