墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-07-15 | COMPLAINT filed by Jasper Rietman; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25386626. |
| 3 | 2026-07-15 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-07-15 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jasper Rietman by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr |
| 5 | 2026-07-15 | MOTION by Plaintiff Jasper Rietman to seal document sealed document[2] |
| — | 2026-07-16 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
| — | 2026-07-16 | 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. |
| 6 | 2026-07-16 | MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. (qrtr,) |
| 7 | 2026-07-17 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal [5]. Initial status hearing is set for 9/24/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in person in Courtroom 1719. By 9/17/2026, the parties shall file a Joint Initial Status Report that complies with the Court's standing orders, which can be found on the Court's website. If the Defendant(s) have not been served by the initial status hearing date, Plaintiff must contact the Courtroom Deputy to reschedule the status hearing and the date for filing the Joint Initial Status Report. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without Plaintiff first consulting this Court's order in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025). Mailed notice. |
| 8 | 2026-08-13 | MOTION by Plaintiff Jasper Rietman for temporary restraining order |
| 9 | 2026-08-13 | MEMORANDUM by Jasper Rietman in support of motion for temporary restraining order[8] |
| 11 | 2026-08-13 | MOTION by Plaintiff Jasper Rietman for leave to file excess pages |
| 12 | 2026-08-13 | MOTION by Plaintiff Jasper Rietman to seal document sealed document[10] |
| 13 | 2026-08-13 | NOTICE of Motion by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order[8], motion for leave to file excess pages[11], motion to seal document[12] before Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis on 8/27/2026 at 09:30 AM. |
| 14 | 2026-08-25 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Georgia N. Alexakis: The Court grants Plaintiff's motions for leave to file excess pages [11] and to file a document under seal [12]. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, asset restraining order, expedited discovery order, and alternative notice for preliminary injunction [8]. For the reasons set forth by Plaintiff in its motion, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to conduct expedited discovery and to provide notice of any motion for a preliminary injunction to Defendant by email. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for entry of a temporary restraining order and asset restraining order. In its memorandum in support of its motion for a temporary restraining order and in an accompanying declaration, Plaintiff asserts that it is experiencing "ongoing" and "immediate" harm owing to Defendant's alleged infringement of Plaintiff's copyright. See, e.g., [9] at 19, 21; [9-2] at 5, 6. This representation is critical in light of Rule 65(b)(1)(A)'s requirement that a court "issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Yet Plaintiff has submitted record evidence reflecting only that Defendant sold the allegedly infringing product in early March 2026 (more than five months ago), the allegedly infringing item is "currently unavailable," and the seller does not "know when or if the item will be back in stock." See [10]. Further, Plaintiff requests a blanket freeze of Defendant's assets, but based on the Court's review of Defendant's storefront, Defendant sells many products not implicated by Plaintiff's lawsuit. Under these circumstances, the Court will not exercise its discretion and impose a prejudgment asset restraint. See Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 at 5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (declining to impose a prejudgment asset restraint that knowingly encompasses "dozens, if not hundreds, of products that are not implicated in this matter" because doing so relieves plaintiff "of its burden to identify the property or proceeds it seeks to enjoin with a sufficient degree of specificity" and "risk[s] creating a pot of money that would be far too plentiful to accomplish [plaintiff's] stated, narrow objective, all the while impeding legitimate business transactions"). The Court vacates the 8/27/2026 presentment hearings. Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed order to the Court's proposed order inbox, in Microsoft Word, modified to reflect only the relief the Court has granted. |