Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships. and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 10/23/2025. Mailed notice.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion for expedited discovery and electronic service 24 25 are granted. Separate order to issue. Mailed notice. (Main Document 26 replaced on 10/23/2025).
MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery
MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Plaintiff's Motion for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Amended Schedule A
Second Amended Complaint AMENDED complaint by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder [Dkt. 19] and determines, within its discretion, that it has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of a dozen defendants is proper in this matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 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. Plaintiff argues that joinder is proper because the joined Defendantsare working in a similar manner and during the same time period to sell counterfeit tools (which is the same "occurrence"); that Defendants are selling counterfeit products at a similar price point, using similar advertising copy over the same four week period in the summer of 2025; and that Defendants have "jointly and severally, knowingly and willfully" advertised and sold Plaintiff's products in the US and Illinois over the Internet. These statements are "highly generic and could apply equally to individuals and entities engaging in activities that are wholly unrelated to this suit." Art Ask Agency v. The Partnerships, No. 21-CV-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Nor are Defendants or their alleged infringement "interrelated" simply because Defendants sell similar products. Id. (similarly rejecting joinder based on features such as shopping platforms, illegitimate SEO tactics, and the use of the same text and images, among other arguments). In short, 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. Even if the court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, it exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (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 (rejecting joinder of 216 defendants, noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [the plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense.") Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint listing one Defendant by no later than October 22, 2025. Any motion for electronic service of process ord
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Schedule A Supplement
MEMORANDUM by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding declaration 17
DECLARATION of Jay Paragoso
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Amended Schedule A
AMENDED complaint by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Amended Schedule A Hereto
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court grants the motion to seal 8, but upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 70 defendants in a single action. By October 14, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by October 14, 2025 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.
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials.
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.
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.
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).
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Sealed Schedule A
MOTION by Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Elizabeth Aubree Miller
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by John Wilson
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Robert Payton Mcmurray
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by William Benjamin Kalbac
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation by Michael A. Hierl
CIVIL Cover Sheet
COMPLAINT filed by Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24167409.