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 | 2026-06-23 | COMPLAINT filed by Shuliang Liu; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25282037. |
| 2 | 2026-06-23 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shuliang Liu by Qin Zhuang |
| 3 | 2026-06-23 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-06-23 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shuliang Liu to seal document Motion for Leave to File under Seal |
| — | 2026-06-23 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| — | 2026-06-23 | 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 | 2026-06-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 100 defendants in a single action. By June 29, 2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice. |
| 7 | 2026-06-29 | AMENDED complaint by Shuliang Liu against Schedule A Defendant and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 9 | 2026-07-13 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shuliang Liu for discovery expedited |
| 10 | 2026-07-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal [4] is denied in light of the amended complaint. The motion for early discovery [9] is granted. Plaintiff is authorized to serve third-party discovery on an expedited basis, with responses due not less than 10 days after service. The requests shall be proportional to the immediate needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For example, a request for "documents sufficient to show X" is better than a request for "all documents showing X." Plaintiff shall consider what documents it genuinely needs at this early stage and shall consider the burden on third parties. Plaintiff shall work cooperatively with third parties impacted by this Order and make reasonable, good faith efforts to ease the burdens imposed by Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. Mailed notice. |
| 12 | 2026-08-05 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shuliang Liu for Electronic Service Pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) |
| 15 | 2026-08-12 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for electronic service of process [12] is granted. Service by email in China is prohibited under the Hague Convention. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 177 F.4th 793 (7th Cir. 2026). The Hague Convention does not apply, however, where a defendant's address is not known and plaintiff has made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the defendant's mailing address before deeming it unknown. Here, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it has made reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the Defendant's mailing address before deeming it unknown. Those efforts are detailed in a sworn declaration provided by Plaintiff's counsel, see dkt. 12-1. In particular, Plaintiff's counsel made efforts to locate and verify Defendant's business information and determine Defendant's actual business name through Amazon; conducting a search of Defendant's actual business name using Baidu, QiChaCha and Tianyancha, Chinese search engines and corporate information databases, which yielded no new address information; and it undertook a test mailing at that place of business using an established courier service. The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated reasonable diligence. See Storylines Glob. Inc. v. Fong, 2025 WL 2943332, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2025) ("Courts have found that searching the internet, calling known phone numbers, and conducting intensive investigations using multiple methods satisfies the reasonable diligence requirement."); Google LLC v. Doe 1, 2026 WL 353660, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2026) (plaintiff demonstrated reasonable diligence where it attempted to ascertain defendants' addresses through multiple means, including by hiring a! cyber investigation firm to pursue an extensive investigation into defendants, seeking the disclosure of addresses associated with defendants from domain registrars, and attempting test mailings and other means of testing the accuracy of the addresses obtained). The court further finds that service by email is reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the pendency of the action and afford Defendant the opportunity to present objections. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The court makes these findings without the benefit of adversarial presentation and therefore is amenable to revisiting them were Defendant to appear and challenge the sufficiency of service. Plaintiff must take some action to advance the case by September 14, 2026. Mailed notice. |