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 | 2026-06-04 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 2 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Keith A. Vogt |
| 3 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Yanling Jiang |
| 4 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Adam Grodman |
| 5 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
| 6 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Monica Rita Martin |
| 7 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Yi Bu |
| 8 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Christopher Romero |
| 9 | 2026-06-04 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sally Walsh by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
| 10 | 2026-06-05 | MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC |
| 11 | 2026-06-05 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sally Walsh for leave to file under seal |
| 12 | 2026-06-05 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sally Walsh for leave to file excess pages |
| 13 | 2026-06-05 | MEMORANDUM in support of 15 Exparte Motion |
| 14 | 2026-06-08 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motions to file under seal and to file excess pages 13 14 are granted. The Court also allows plaintiff to engage in expedited discovery. Plaintiff's motion for entry of TRO and for service by email and/or electronic publication 15 is DENIED. In Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 2026 WL 1502198, at *5 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026), the Court found that "[t]he [Hague] Convention's text and structure demonstrate that, where it applies, it provides the permissible means of service and excludes all others. And because no provision of the Convention authorizes service by email in China, such service violates the Convention and Rule 4(f)(3)." The Court grounded its holding in the Convention's exclusivity and concluded that the Convention "creates a closed universe" Plaintiff "has good cause to suspect the registrants of the respective Defendant Internet Stores are all residents of China" [16 at 25] but fails to address Kangol. Plaintiff shall file a status report or a revised motion by 7/6/26. Mailed notice. |
| 15 | 2026-06-10 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant hippiesale.com by Michael T. Griggs |
| 16 | 2026-06-22 | MOTION by Defendant hippiesale.com to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper joinder |
| 17 | 2026-06-23 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Motion is set for hearing to set briefing on 7/1/26 at 9:30 AM. Mailed notice. |
| 18 | 2026-07-01 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Motion hearing held. Plaintiff's counsel appeared; defense counsel failed to appear. The court orders plaintiff to file proof of personal jurisdiction as to all defendants by 7/8/26. For the reasons stated on the record, defendant's motion 20 is denied without prejudice. Defendant may refile his motion after review of proof of personal jurisdiction. Mailed notice. |
| 19 | 2026-07-06 | STATUS Report pursuant to Minute Entry Order 18 by Sally Walsh |
| 20 | 2026-07-06 | RESPONSE by Plaintiff Sally Walsh to order on motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction, motion hearing, 22 |
| 21 | 2026-07-08 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Court has reviewed the status report 23. Plaintiff is granted an extension to 8/6/26 to address the issue of service of process. The court has also reviewed Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction and finds Plaintiff has established personal jurisdiction for the named defendants. Mailed notice. |
| 22 | 2026-07-09 | MOTION by Defendant hippiesale.com to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper joinder |
| 23 | 2026-07-10 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Response to the motion for dismiss is due 7/31/26, reply due 8/7/26. Mailed notice. |
| 24 | 2026-07-31 | RESPONSE by Sally Walsh in Opposition to MOTION by Defendant hippiesale.com to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper joinder 26 |
| 25 | 2026-08-06 | MOTION for leave to effect service of process by electronic means and for issuance of summons by Sally Walsh |
| 26 | 2026-08-06 | MEMORANDUM in suppport of motion for leave to effect service of process by electronic means |
| 27 | 2026-08-07 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sally Walsh for leave to file excess pages |
| 28 | 2026-08-07 | MOTION by Plaintiff Sally Walsh for preliminary injunction |
| 29 | 2026-08-07 | MEMORANDUM by Sally Walsh in support of motion for preliminary injunction 32 |
| 30 | 2026-08-07 | REPLY by Defendant hippiesale.com to motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 26 |
| 31 | 2026-08-12 | SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendants aomiss.com, hibahdiamondpaintingartstudio.com |
| 32 | 2026-08-12 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Defendant Magic Matrix Technology, Co. LTD's ("Magic Matrix") motion to dismiss 26 is denied. Magic Matrix raises two issues in its motion: lack of personal jurisdiction and improper joinder. As to personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction based the sale and shipment of an allegedly infringing product to this district. 25. While Magic Matrix contends that a "test purchase" by Plaintiff is insufficient because it amounts to Plaintiff "manufacturing" personal jurisdiction, this contention was rejected in NBA Props., Inc. v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022). There, the Seventh Circuit found unpersuasive the defendant's argument that the plaintiff manufactured jurisdiction by having its agent purchase an infringing product. Id. at 624. The Seventh Circuit explained the plaintiff's "motivations in purchasing the allegedly illegal item [were] in no way relevant to an assessment of whether [defendant] has established sufficient contacts to sell its products to Illinois residents." Id. In other words, the defendant had "shipped a product to the forum only after it had structured its sales activity in such a manner as to invite orders from Illinois." Id. at 625. The same applies here. Magic Matrix set up an online store, asserted a willingness to ship goods to Illinois via that online store, and when an order was placed by Plaintiff's agent, it filled the order and shipped an infringing product to Illinois. 1 4; [16-3] 9; [17-1] at 12-13; 25 ; [28-1] 4-9. By doing so, Magic Matrix structured its activities to target Illinois and should have known that it could be subject to this Court's jurisdiction when it shipped a product this forum. As to improper joinder, Plaintiff submits evidence showing that Magic Matrix and co-defendant storefronts each load the accused product's image from an identical web address and content-delivery network. [28-1] 8. Plaintiff also presents evidence that eighteen of the defendant storefronts, including Magic Matrix, have associated PayPal accounts that are linked to a common email address as well as other evidence supporting an inference of common ownership between Magic Matrix and other co-defendants. Id. 9-11. Magic Matrix presents no rebuttal evidence. Accordingly, at least at this stage in this case, Plaintiff have presented sufficient facts and evidence demonstrating the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 are met. Mailed notice. |
| 33 | 2026-08-12 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion for electronic service 29, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to ascertain and verify the mailing addresses for the ten defendants it wishes to serve electronically. Although Plaintiff conducted online research into addresses provided by PayPal and other sources, Plaintiff never took the straightforward step of simply asking those ten defendants directly for their addresses. Plaintiff acknowledges that it has the email addresses and some phone numbers associated with those ten defendants. It would appear reasonable, therefore, to contact those email addresses and phone numbers to inquire whether a physical address can be obtained. Moreover, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff's online research alone was sufficient. For instance, Plaintiff declares that the address of Defendants No. 5 and 23 is unknown because there is a "mismatch" between two candidate addresses it obtained. A mismatch does not mean an address is unknown, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated any reasonably diligent efforts in investigating those candidate addressesby sending a test mailing or an on-foot investigator, for exampleto determine whether any correspond to the defendant's actual address. The same goes for the other candidate addresses Plaintiff obtained. The motion 29 is therefore denied without prejudice to refile. While the Court understands that Plaintiff also seeks email service on certain Defendants who reside in locations not subject to Article 10(a) of Hague Convention, for judicial economy, the Court will reserve ruling on those Defendants until after it receives Plaintiff's refiled motion. Mailed notice. |