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 | 2026-08-03 | COMPLAINT filed by Celine S.A.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25471448. |
| 5 | 2026-08-03 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A. to seal Schedule A and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert |
| 14 | 2026-08-11 | ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Order, the Court finds that Defendants in this case are not properly joined. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. By August 25, 2026, Plaintiff is directed to amend its complaint to eliminate all improperly joined defendants. If the amended complaint names more than one defendant, Plaintiff must simultaneously file a memorandum explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. Plaintiff's motion to seal, R. 5, is denied as moot. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 8/11/2026. Mailed notice. |
| 15 | 2026-08-11 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A. to seal Amended Schedule A and Plaintiff's Memorandum Establishing that Joinder is Proper |
| 18 | 2026-08-11 | AMENDED complaint by Celine S.A. against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 19 | 2026-08-24 | Order on Motion to Seal |
| 21 | 2026-08-25 | Miscellaneous Relief |
| 22 | 2026-08-25 | Temporary Restraining Order |
| 23 | 2026-08-26 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a TRO and other relief [22] is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has not come close to meeting the exacting standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to warrant ex parte relief. That is, the Court finds that "the generic copy-and-paste declarations made mostly 'upon information and belief' fall well short of providing 'specific facts' to 'clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result,' and also fail to satisfy the certification requirement." Ren et al v. AilunUS, 25-cv-09278 Dkt. 32 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2025). That is ample reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A., No. 25 C 2937, 2025 WL 2299593 at *4-7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.) ("Given that any irreparable harm wrought by infringement can, as with more traditional forms of IP litigation, be addressed through preliminary injunctive relief following an adversarial proceeding, the use of Rule 65(b) to ensure an unimpeded path to a prejudgment asset restraint is unsound."). The Court acknowledges that, in earlier Schedule A cases, it granted similar TRO motions. See, e.g., Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 25-cv-08835 Dkt. 22 (Aug. 19, 2025). However, upon further consideration of the issue, including a review of Judge Kness's thorough order in Eicher Motors, the Court finds that the present TRO request, and other similar requests, do not satisfy Rule 65(b)'s requirements. Plaintiff may be allowed to seek discovery to assist with identifying defendant, but any such request must be presented in a separate motion. For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) [21]. Plaintiff attached a declaration discussing its efforts to ascertain a physical address for service through the hiring of an investigative team that reviews publicly available information and satellite imagery, but it was ultimately unable to ascertain an address for service. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff expended reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain an address for service. Because the address for service is not known, the Hague Convention does not apply. See Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793, 799 (7th Cir. 2026) ("the Convention does not permit service by email in China"). Mailed notice. |
| 24 | 2026-08-26 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A.for order directing clerk to issue summons. |
| 25 | 2026-08-31 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the Court to direct the Clerk to issues a single summons under the name "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A of the Complaint" [24]. "Rule 4(b) specifically contemplates a single summons addressed to multiple defendants, and Rule 10(a)'s caption requirement relates to pleadings, not the summons." Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", 2025 WL 3057628, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2025). Courts in this district find no procedural defect with a single summons for multiple defendants when the "concurrently filed Schedule A identifies each Defendant individually, in accordance with customary practice in this district." Id. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion [24] and orders the Clerk to issue a single summons under the name "The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A of the Complaint." Mailed notice. |