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 | 2026-08-19 | COMPLAINT filed by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25549563. |
| 3 | 2026-08-19 | MOTION by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal |
| 4 | 2026-08-19 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 5 | 2026-08-19 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd |
| 6 | 2026-08-19 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd |
| 7 | 2026-08-19 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Martin Francis Trainor |
| 8 | 2026-08-19 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Alexander Whang |
| 9 | 2026-08-19 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd by Victor Benjamin Chahin, Jr |
| — | 2026-08-19 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| — | 2026-08-19 | 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. |
| 10 | 2026-08-20 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 11 | 2026-08-20 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 12 | 2026-08-24 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff's motion to seal [3] is denied. "The court may for good cause shown enter an order directing that one or more documents be filed under seal." L.R. 26.2(b). "[A] district court must be sensitive to the rights of the public in determining whether any particular document, or class of documents, is appropriately filed under seal." United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 228 (7th Cir. 1989). Here, the plaintiff has not shown good cause. The plaintiff claims that, "[i]f Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, thus frustrating the purpose of the underlying litigation and this Court's power to grant relief." But the plaintiff has not offered any evidence to support this claim. As a result, the plaintiff has not met its burden. The plaintiff must file an unsealed version of Dkt. No. 2 on or before August 28, 2026. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the complaint. Moreover, the Court questions whether the plaintiff has a good-faith basis for its claim that these defendants would destroy evidence, hide assets, or transfer assets if they were to learn of these proceedings. The plaintiff has named 95 defendants. The plaintiff alleges that "Defendants are unknown individuals and business entities who own and/or operate one or more of the e-commerce stores under the Seller Aliases identified on Schedule A and/or other seller aliases not yet known to Glitch." (R. 1 at 35.) How can the plaintiff predict what these 95 defendants would do if the plaintiff does not know who they are? The plaintiff makes no mention in any of its pleadings of prior experience with any of these defendants. The plaintiff does not identify any other instances of these 95 defendants doing the things the plaintiff claims they would do. Rule 11 requires that "factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." The plaintiff must show cause why it has not violated Rule 11 as to each of the 95 defendants named in Dkt. No. 2 by claiming that these defendants would destroy evidence, hide assets, or transfer assets. Rule to show cause hearing set for September 3, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice. |
| — | 2026-08-26 | NEW PARTIES: twinkle_dolls added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 14 | 2026-08-26 | AMENDED complaint by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd against twinkle_dolls |
| 15 | 2026-08-31 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Glitch Productions Pty Ltd as to defendant |
| 16 | 2026-09-01 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The Court has received the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal. The September 3, 2026, rule to show cause hearing stands. Mailed notice |
| 17 | 2026-09-01 | RESPONSE by Plaintiff Glitch Productions Pty Ltd to order on motion for miscellaneous relief, set/reset hearings, [12] |
| 18 | 2026-09-03 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: Show cause hearing held. The Court orders the plaintiff to submit evidence concerning defendants 57 and 65 by the end of the day, 9/3/2026. Mailed notice. |
| 19 | 2026-09-03 | DECLARATION of Martin F. Trainor regarding Response, [17] (Supplemental) |
| 20 | 2026-09-04 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: Rule to show cause discharged. Though questions remain, for instance, Dkt. No. 19-2, page 12 of 19, is a USPS Ground Advantage shipping label, which suggests the package originated in the United States, the Court will accept counsel's representations and take the opportunity to remind counsel of the importance of supporting assertions made in pleadings with evidence. Pursuant to the plaintiff's notice of dismissal [15], this case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. |