Afremov v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment against Defendant To Be-Unique [33]. The Court denies the motion because it cannot find that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. "Default judgments rendered without personal jurisdiction are void and, therefore," the Seventh Circuit will "set aside a default judgment as a per se abuse of discretion if the district court that entered the judgment lacked jurisdiction." e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 598 (7th Cir. 2007). Although Plaintiff argues that the Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because it has sold infringing products to residents in Illinois, R. [34] at 4, the evidence cited by Plaintiff in support of personal jurisdiction reflects only that Defendant offers the infringing products for sale to residents of Illinois, id. at 3 (citing R. 21-1, Afremov Decl. para. 9). The Court notes that the memorandum cites to the "Elliot Decl."; however, the Court is not aware of any declaration submitted by "Elliot," and from context, understands the citation to be to the declaration of Plaintiff Afremov. If that is incorrect and there is a declaration from "Elliot" that shows that infringing products were sold into Illinois, Plaintiff should attach that declaration to any renewed motion. The Seventh Circuit, however, has held that "a defendant may not be 'haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state.'" Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 1094 (7th Cir. 2026). Plaintiff provides no evidence of actual sales in Illinois, and the Seventh Circuit has vacated default judgment orders in which "[t]he evidence upon which the district court relied shows only that it was possible to order the defendants' products and have them shipped to Illinois, not that such sales took place." Id. at 1093. uBID, Inc. v. GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 423-24 (7th Cir. 2010), cited by Plaintiff in support of the proposition that "without benefit of an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff bears only the burden of making a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction; all of plaintiff's asserted facts should be accepted as true and any factual determinations should be resolved in its favor," R. [34] at 3-4, was decided at the dismissal stage, so the Seventh Circuit found that it must take Plaintiff's asserted facts as true "[a]t this early stage in the litigation," uBID, 623 F.3d at 423-24. Not so on a motion for default judgment. Liu, 170 F.4th at 1093-94. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice [33] because it is not satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Plaintiff is directed to file, by 6/4/2026, either an amended motion for default or a status report with proposed next steps. Mailed notice.

ORDER ON EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Before the Court is Plaintiff's ex parte motion for a TRO and other relief [20]. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion [20]. As stated in this Order, the motion for a TRO and other injunctive relief is denied without prejudice; Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery is granted in part and denied in part; and Plaintiff's motion for electronic service is granted. Plaintiff has not come close to meeting the exacting standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) to warrant ex parte relief. That is, the Court finds that "the generic copy-and-paste declarations made mostly 'upon information and belief' fall well short of providing 'specific facts' to 'clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result,' and also fail to satisfy the certification requirement." Ren et al v. AilunUS, 25-cv-09278 Dkt. 32 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2025). That is ample reason to deny this extraordinary request. See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A., 2025 WL 2299593 at *4-7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.) ("Given that any irreparable harm wrought by infringement can, as with more traditional forms of IP litigation, be addressed through preliminary injunctive relief following an adversarial proceeding, the use of Rule 65(b) to ensure an unimpeded path to a prejudgment asset restraint is unsound."). The Court acknowledges that, in earlier Schedule A cases, it granted similar TRO motions. See, e.g., Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 25-cv-08835 Dkt. 22 (Aug. 19, 2025). However, upon further consideration of the issue, including a review of Judge Kness's thorough order in Eicher Motors, the Court finds that the present TRO request, and other similar requests, do not satisfy Rule 65(b)'s requirements. The Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery. That is, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for electronic discovery related to the identities and locations of Defendant, but denies the request as to the nature of Defendant's operations and all associated sales, methods of payment for services and financial information, which information the Court finds is more appropriately addressed in the regular course of discovery. Additionally, for the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Finally, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages [24] is denied as moot. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 2/9/2026. Mailed notice.

ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Order, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for misjoinder. By 11/3/2025, Plaintiff is directed to amend its complaint to eliminate all improperly joined defendants. If the amended complaint names more than one defendant, Plaintiff must simultaneously file a memorandum explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. Plaintiff's motions to seal, [5], [11] ; motion for temporary restraining order [7]; and motion for leave to file excess pages [10], are denied as moot. Signed by the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama on 10/21/2025. Mailed notice.