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 |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | 2026-07-02 | ORDER ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RELEASE BOND Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 7/2/2026. Mailed notice |
| 49 | 2026-06-26 | ORDER MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Pursuant to Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal [47] and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this matter is dismissed without prejudice as to the remaining defendants with each party to bear its own costs and fees. All pending motions, hearings, and deadlines are stricken. Civil case terminated. Plaintiff's motion for release of bond obligations [48] is granted. The ten-thousand dollar ($10,000) bond posted by Plaintiff, including any applicable or earned interest, is hereby released to Plaintiff's counsel: Marjorie Ouyang, One Park Plaza, #600, Irvine, CA 92614. Mailed notice |
| 48 | 2026-06-26 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd for release of bond obligation 1 attachment |
| 47 | 2026-06-24 | DISMISSAL NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd |
| 46 | 2026-06-24 | ADMIN STATUS Report by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd |
| 45 | 2026-06-17 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff failed to file the status report due by 6/16/2026. Plaintiff is directed to file a status report with an update on the case by 6/24/2026. Mailed notice |
| 44 | 2026-06-09 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: By 6/16/2026, Plaintiff shall file a status report with an update on this case. Mailed notice |
| 43 | 2026-05-21 | PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS REPORT REGARDING PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE BOND REQUIREMENT by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd 1 attachment |
| 42 | 2026-05-11 | REGISTRY Deposit Information Form by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd. (Received at the Intake Counter on 05/11/2026) — 05/11/2026 CASH BOND in the amount of $ 10,000, Receipt no. 100032608 posted by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd (Text entry; no document attached.) |
| 41 | 2026-05-04 | DECLARATION DECLARATION of MANDY WU IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MINUTE ORDER DOCKET NO.39 |
| 40 | 2026-05-04 | APPEARANCE ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd by Mingzi Ouyang |
| 39 | 2026-04-27 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for Preliminary Injunction [38], motion for Entry of an Order Directing the Clerk to Issue Summons [37], and motion for Alternative Service [34] are denied without prejudice. Plaintiff did not post the $10,000 bond as ordered by the Court. See Doc. [26]. Further, upon review of the complaint and the Preliminary Injunction submissions, the Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Evidence "that it was possible to order the defendants' products and have them shipped to Illinois," including screenshots of the defendant's "website showing the checkout page with the infringing product, a Chicago shipping address, and the estimated total," but without evidence of a completed purchase is insufficient. Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 1093 (7th Cir. 2026). By 5/4/2026, plaintiff shall file supplemental evidence showing a sale within the jurisdiction or a status report stating its basis to continue this case without such sale. Mailed notice |
| 38 | 2026-04-22 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd for preliminary injunction 2 attachments |
| 37 | 2026-04-21 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd For Entry of an Order Directing the Clerk to Issue Summons 1 attachment |
| 35 | 2026-04-21 | REGISTRY Deposit Information Form by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd (Received at the Intake Counter on 4/21/26.) |
| 34 | 2026-04-21 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd for Alternative Service 1 attachment |
| 33 | 2026-04-21 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's ex parte motion 32 to direct the clerk to issue summons and extend the temporary restraining order seeks to extend the sealed TRO entered on 3/25/2026 to maintain the status quo by an additional period of 7 days until 4/29/2026. Rule 65 dictates that a temporary restraining order cannot exceed 14 days, although the court may extend it "for a like period" for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). On 4/3/2026, this Court extended the TRO an additional 14 days until 4/22/2026. Doc. 28. Plaintiff's current request exceeds the maximum 28-day limit for a TRO. If a TRO extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under Rule 65(b), the extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012). A preliminary injunction requires notification to the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. 65(a)(1) (a "court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party."). Because plaintiff did not provide the defendant identified in the Second Amended Schedule A with notice of its intent to seek a preliminary injunction, plaintiff's motion to extend the TRO 32 is denied. Further, plaintiff did not post the $10,000 bond as ordered by the Court. See Doc. 26. As to the motion to direct the clerk to issue summons, plaintiff failed to provide an address for the defendant on the summons or file a motion for electronic service of process, thus this motion is denied. Mailed notice |
| 32 | 2026-04-20 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Order directing Clerk to issue summons and extending TRO to April 29, 2026 |
| 31 | 2026-04-20 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Telephone status hearing set for 4/22/2026 is stricken. Mailed notice |
| 30 | 2026-04-12 | SUMMONS SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) he Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd — 04/09/2026 SUMMONS SUMMONS - ERROR UNPROCESSED due to Wrong Form Used. Please use the correct form located here: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/_forms/_online/ao440e.pdf?refresh (Text entry; no document attached.) |
| 29 | 2026-04-09 | SUMMONS SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Parties identified in Schedule A by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd |
| 28 | 2026-04-03 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Temporary Restraining Order 27 is granted. The Court finds good cause to extend the temporary restraining order an additional 14 days to 4/22/2026. Plaintiff shall file a preliminary injunction motion if appropriate no later than 4/15/2026. Telephone status hearing set for 4/8/2026 is stricken and reset to 4/22/2026 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice |
| 27 | 2026-04-02 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd to Extend Temporary Restraining Order |
| 26 | 2026-03-25 | ORDER TEMPORARY Restraining Order Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 3/25/2026. Mailed notice |
| 25 | 2026-03-25 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's renewed ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery 19 is granted. Plaintiff's submissions establish that were defendant to learn of these proceedings before the execution of plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that defendant could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motion cited above, plaintiff's filings support proceeding on an ex parte basis at this time. Specifically, and as noted above, were defendant to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, the Court finds that it is likely that their assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendant, stopping defendant's infringing conduct, and obtaining an accounting. Further, the evidence submitted by plaintiff shows a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit products, and there is no countervailing harm to defendant from an order directing it to stop infringement. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendant and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order at 2:30 p.m. on 3/25/2026. Plaintiff shall file the TRO extension motion (or a preliminary injunction motion) if appropriate no later than 4/1/2026. Telephone status hearing is set for 4/8/2026 at 9:15 a.m. Mailed notice |
| 24 | 2026-03-08 | COMPLAINT SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Second Amended Complaint |
| 23 | 2026-03-05 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff failed to file an unredacted version of the Second Amended Complaint under seal and submit a proposed temporary restraining order. By 3/12/2026, Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of the Second Amended Complaint under seal and submit a proposed temporary restraining order to the Court's proposed order inbox. Mailed notice |
| 22 | 2026-02-25 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: By 2/27/2026, Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of the Second Amended Complaint under seal and submit a proposed temporary restraining order to the Court's proposed order inbox. Mailed notice |
| 21 | 2026-02-06 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd 2 attachments |
| 20 | 2026-02-06 | MOTION SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order |
| 19 | 2026-02-06 | MOTION SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Plaintiff's Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order |
| 18 | 2026-02-06 | COMPLAINT SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Updated Schedule A related to Second Amended Complaint 16 |
| 17 | 2026-02-06 | COMPLAINT SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Exhibit 1 related to Second Amended Complaint 16 |
| 16 | 2026-02-06 | COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED complaint by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 15 | 2026-02-04 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 13 and determines, within its discretion, that plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of 6 defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the Court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Overall, the arguments fall short of establishing a logical relationship among the defendants. The Court is not persuaded that any one defendant's infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Similarities between websites, prices, sales tactics, and unauthorized products do not suggest a logical relationship between defendants. Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Further, a claim that defendants infringed on its copyright in the same way does not sufficiently link one defendant to another. Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) ("Courts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence."). Moreover, "Plaintiff's speculation that the infringing products come from a common source is insufficient to support joinder." Peleg Design Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 1759139, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2024); Viking Arm AS v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2024 WL 2953105, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024) (that "defendants likely use the same manufacturer. is a coincidentally identical fact that reflects the way these internet webstores tend to operate, not that all defendants are part of a network of infringers.") (cleaned up). Even if the Court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, the Court exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense."). Accordingly, the Court dismisses defendant Nos. 2-6 without prejudice. The case will proceed against defendant No. 1. If plaintiff files a new action against defendants Nos. 2-6, plaintiff shall indicate on the Civil Cover Sheet that the filed case is related to this matter. See Local Rule 40.3(b)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 6 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to seal 4 is granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this Order by 2/10/2026. Mailed notice |
| 14 | 2026-01-27 | DECLARATION SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Declaration of Marjorie Ouyang In Support of Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum 13 2 attachments |
| 13 | 2026-01-27 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Supplemental Memorandum Establishing That Joinder is Proper, Pursuant to Docket Entry 9 |
| 12 | 2026-01-27 | COMPLAINT SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Updated Schedule A related to Amended Complaint 10 |
| 11 | 2026-01-27 | COMPLAINT SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Exhibit 1 related to Amended Complaint 10 |
| 10 | 2026-01-27 | COMPLAINT AMENDED complaint by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
| 9 | 2026-01-21 | MINUTES MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 4 and plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 6 are entered and continued. Upon review of the complaint and the TRO submissions, the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of 12 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 1/27/2026, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a single defendant or a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. Further, Plaintiff has not requested nor have exceptional circumstances been shown to proceed anonymously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]"); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016) ("To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity."); XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2020 WL 6681360, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) ("No-name litigation is the rare exception, not the Rule."). "There is insufficient evidence. that Schedule A defendants are taking advantage of the case-tracking option to such an extent that it is materially impeding brand owners' enforcement efforts." XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2022 WL 180151, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). Accordingly, by 1/27/2026, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that lists plaintiff's true name. Mailed notice — 01/20/2026 ADMIN 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. (Text entry; no document attached.) — 01/20/2026 ADMIN CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Albert Berry, III. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Three). (Text entry; no document attached.) |
| 8 | 2026-01-20 | MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC |
| 7 | 2026-01-16 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd 2 attachments |
| 6 | 2026-01-16 | MOTION SEALED MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd for Tempory Restraining Order |
| 5 | 2026-01-16 | APPEARANCE ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd by Mingzi Ouyang |
| 4 | 2026-01-16 | MOTION MOTION by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd for leave to file under seal |
| 3 | 2026-01-16 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Exhibit 1 related to Complaint 1 |
| 2 | 2026-01-16 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd Schedule A related to Complaint 1 |
| 1 | 2026-01-16 | COMPLAINT COMPLAINT filed by Changzhou Yichen Trading Co Ltd; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24609328. 1 attachment |