MAILED copyright report with certified copy of closing order dated 5/17/26 to Registrar, Washington DC (bi,)
Mudworks Pottery, LLC v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
案件进展
34 条记录MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Pursuant to Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [33] and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.
原告撤诉/结案NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Mudworks Pottery, LLC of Certain Doe Defendants
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court previously ordered the parties to file a joint initial status report on or before 5/12/2026 [31]. To date, nothing has been filed. The parties shall file a joint initial status report on or before 5/20/2026. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case. Mailed notice.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Given Defendant's answer deadline of 4/27/2026, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for the filing of the joint initial status report from 4/20/2026 [27] to 5/12/2026. Mailed notice.
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mudworks Pottery, LLC as to Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 4/6/2026, answer due 4/27/2026.
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) Neon Beautiful by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On or before 4/20/2026, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Joint Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report. Plaintiff must serve this Minute Entry on all other parties. If the defendant(s) has not been served with process by that date, plaintiff's counsel is instructed to file an individual status report indicating the status of service of process by the same deadline. The parties are further ordered to review all of Judge Valderrama's standing orders and the information available on his webpage. Any nongovernmental corporate party that qualifies under the Rules is reminded of the requirement to file a disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1/N.D. Ill. Local Rule 3.2. 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]. 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 Defendants' 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.
法院批准TROMINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [23]. The Court, like many other courts in this District, is unconvinced that "these commonplace efforts in Schedule A cases to obtain secret relief comport with principles of procedural due process." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025) (Kness, J.); see also Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co. LTD. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A, 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2025) (Hunt, J.). As an initial matter, these infringement cases rarely present exceptional circumstances that would justify sealing the names of all defendants and documents pertaining to their alleged infringing activity, let alone an entire case, even temporarily. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." Eicher Motors, 2025 WL 2299593 at *7. And, importantly, the reasoning underlying Plaintiff's motion to seal runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject matter of a case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000). It is insufficient that alleged counterfeiters might quickly shut down the online store and move money if alerted to the fact that they are being sued. See Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., 25-cv-09559 Dkt. No. 10. "Due process still affords them the right to receive notice and a chance to present a defense before restraining all of their assets based solely on one-sided documentary evidence from Plaintiff." Id. Therefore, without a detailed explanation to establish good cause for sealing in accordance with Local Rule 26.2 and Seventh Circuit precedent, which has not been provided here, sealing is not appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal [23] is denied, and the Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the entire case, forthwith. Mailed notice.
MOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC to seal document sealed document[22], sealed document[19]
MEMORANDUM by Mudworks Pottery, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order[20]
原告提交TRO申请SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC Schedule A to Amended Complaint
AMENDED complaint by Mudworks Pottery, LLC against Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 10/19/2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's case without prejudice for misjoinder [12]. Plaintiff was directed to amend its complaint by 10/30/2025 to eliminate all improperly joined defendants. If the amended complaint named more than one defendant, Plaintiff was directed to simultaneously file a memorandum in support of joinder. On 10/30/2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a memorandum in support of joinder [13]. Plaintiff did not request time to file an amended complaint. The Court granted the motion and ordered Plaintiff to file its memorandum in support of joinder no later than 11/14/2025. On 11/16/2025, Plaintiff filed its memorandum in support of joinder. Plaintiff, however, still has not complied with the Court's 10/19/2025 order, because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint that eliminates all improperly joined defendants. Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to file an amended complaint eliminating all unnecessary defendants on or before 3/13/2026. Plaintiff shall also indicate if it rests on its 11/16/2025 memorandum in support of joinder for the amended complaint. If not, Plaintiff is also directed to file a simultaneous memorandum in support of joinder. If Plaintiff intends to proceed against the same defendants as those in its original complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff that the argument that these Defendants' product descriptions have the same wording, pictures, manufacturing source, and common ownership was already considered and rejected in the Court's original Order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. See R. [12] at 34 (That "Defendants' product descriptions use the same or similar wording and/or the same pictures, or that Defendants' use the same manufacturing source, that does not establish that Defendants are the same or are working together. [that copyright infringers have] common ownership does not change the analysis"). Mailed notice.
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice.
SUPPLEMENT to order on motion to seal document, order on motion for temporary restraining order, order on motion for leave to file excess pages, set deadlines, 12
原告提交TRO申请MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's motion for extension [13] is granted. Plaintiff shall file its memorandum in support of joinder no later than 11/14/2025. Mailed notice.
MOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC for extension of time to file Memorandum in Support of Joinder
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Order, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice for misjoinder. By 10/30/2025, 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 10/19/2025. Mailed notice.
法院批准TROMOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC to seal document sealed document[9]
MOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC for leave to file excess pages
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff
MEMORANDUM by Mudworks Pottery, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order[7]
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC for temporary restraining order
原告提交TRO申请MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC
MOTION by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC to seal document sealed document[2]
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr
CIVIL Cover Sheet
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Mudworks Pottery, LLC Schedule A to Complaint
COMPLAINT filed by Mudworks Pottery, LLC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24036265.
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).
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.
