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. |
| 2 | 2026-08-03 | DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine S.A. Schedule A (Main Document 2 replaced on 8/25/2026). Modified on 8/25/2026. |
| 3 | 2026-08-03 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-08-03 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Celine S.A. by Paul Joseph Kossof |
| 5 | 2026-08-03 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A. to seal Schedule A and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert |
| 6 | 2026-08-03 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Celine S.A. |
| 7 | 2026-08-03 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Celine S.A. |
| 8 | 2026-08-03 | Trademark Report by Celine S.A. |
| 9 | 2026-08-03 | DECLARATION of Paul Kossof |
| 10 | 2026-08-03 | DECLARATION of Nicolas Lambert |
| 11 | 2026-08-03 | DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine S.A. Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Nicolas Lambert (Main Document 11 replaced on 8/25/2026). Modified on 8/25/2026. |
| — | 2026-08-03 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| — | 2026-08-03 | 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. |
| 12 | 2026-08-04 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 13 | 2026-08-04 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 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 |
| 16 | 2026-08-11 | DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine S.A. Amended Schedule A. (Main Document 16 replaced on 8/25/2026). Modified on 8/25/2026. |
| 17 | 2026-08-11 | DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Celine S.A. Plaintiff's Memorandum Establishing that Joinder is Proper. (Main Document 17 replaced on 8/25/2026). Modified on 8/25/2026. |
| 18 | 2026-08-11 | AMENDED complaint by Celine S.A. against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 19 | 2026-08-24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to seal its memorandum in support of joinder 15. The Court, like many other courts in this District, is unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.); see also Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2025) (Hunt, J.). As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, let alone an entire case, even temporarily. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." Eicher Motors, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7. And, importantly, the reasoning underlying Plaintiff's motion to seal runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). It is insufficient that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. See Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10. "Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one-sided documentary evidence from Plaintiff." Id. Therefore, without a detailed explanation to establish good cause for sealing in accordance with Local Rule 26.2 and Seventh Circuit precedent, which has not been provided here, sealing is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal 15 is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the entire case, forthwith. Mailed notice. |
| 20 | 2026-08-24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On or before 11/9/2026, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Joint Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report. Plaintiff must serve this Minute Entry on all other parties. If the defendant(s) has not been served with process by that date, plaintiff's counsel is instructed to file an individual status report indicating the status of service of process by the same deadline. The parties are further ordered to review all of Judge Valderrama's standing orders and the information available on his webpage. Any nongovernmental corporate party that qualifies under the Rules is reminded of the requirement to file a disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1/N.D. Ill. Local Rule 3.2. Mailed notice. |
| 21 | 2026-08-25 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A.for electronic service of process. |
| 22 | 2026-08-25 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A. for 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. |
| 27 | 2026-08-31 | SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 28 | 2026-09-01 | SUMMONS Returned Executed by Celine S.A. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 9/1/2026, answer due 9/22/2026. |
| — | 2026-09-01 | NEW PARTIES: 8613262083689, 8613385028267, 8617779778433, brandgift, luxurysotre999 and shopping9998 added to case caption. |
| 29 | 2026-10-05 | MOTION by Plaintiff Celine S.A. for default judgment as to all Defendants on the Amended Schedule A. |
| 31 | 2026-10-09 | MOTION by Defendant luxurysotre999 for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint, [1] |