最近更新：2025-02-25
2024-cv-05231 AI分析
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 12/27/2024 | 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 12/27/2024: Mailed notice.
译文：年度提醒：根据当地规则3.2(关联企业的通知)，任何非政府组织，除个人或独资企业外，必须提交一份声明，列出该方经过认真审查后已知的所有关联企业，或者，如果该方未确定任何关联企业，则必须提交一份反映该事实的声明。附属公司的定义如下：直接或间接(通过一个或多个其他实体的所有权)拥有一方5%或更多股份的任何实体或个人。声明将以PDF格式以电子形式提交，并根据提示在CM/ECF中输入附属公司。作为对律师的提醒，当事人必须在先前报告的信息发生任何变化后三十(30)天内补充其附属公司的声明。向所有记录在案的律师发出这一记录命令，以提醒律师有义务在必要时提供有关更多附属公司的最新信息。如果法律顾问对此过程有任何疑问，此链接将提供更多信息。弗吉尼亚·M·肯德尔阁下于2024年12月27日签署：邮寄通知。
|
| 07/04/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff RC by Stephen Jay Judge
译文：斯蒂芬·杰伊·贾奇（Stephen Jay Judge）为原告RC出庭
|
| 07/03/2024 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has initiated a copyright infringement case against a list of Defendants and seeks to proceed, at least initially, via pseudonym. See 5. Plaintiff also seeks leave to temporarily seal her complaint, the "Schedule A" listing the named Defendants, and copies of Plaintiff's certificates of copyright registration. Id. "No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and particularly in this Circuit." XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly voiced its disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. 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." Id. (citing Doe v. Vill. of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 37677 (7th Cir. 2016); Doe v. Smith, 429 F.3d 706, 710 (7th Cir. 2005); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiff argues that proceeding pseudonymously and sealing the complaint and Schedule A remains "necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order." 5 at 1. She argues that, if Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, "the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence, the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, and the transfer or disablement of the infringing websites," which would "frustrate the purposes of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." Id. But Plaintiff makes no specific argument about pseudonymity; indeed, many cases just like this are filed every day in this District without anonymous plaintiffs. Plaintiff does not explain why the requested sealing order (which would prevent defendants from learning that they have been sued) remains insufficient by itself to alleviate the concerns she has identified; nor has she explained why this case is otherwise exceptional. For these reasons, and as this Court has previously held, see Clara McAllister v. The Partnerships, No. 24-cv-01848, at 13 (N.D. Ill. March 18, 2024), the Court denies Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed via pseudonym 5. Additionally, because Plaintiff has failed to identify herself on any of the pending pleadings, the Court dismisses her complaint 1 without prejudice and denies without prejudice her requests to seal 5, 9, her motion for TRO 6, and her motion for leave to file excess pages 8. The 7/10/24 Notice of Motion date is stricken. If Plaintiff elects to pursue an amended complaint and revised motions, she should ensure that her pleadings provide a factual and legal basis to join 316 Defendants in a single suit. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). The initial complaint alleged simply that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 2 10. But the conclusion does not necessarily follow the alleged facts; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Moreover, although Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant has sold infringing products within the State of Illinois, making personal jurisdiction proper, a cursory review of the submitted screenshot evidence fails to support that allegation, see, e.g., [7-4] at 4, 8; [7-7] at 2, 6, 10; [7-13] at 4. Nor does the submitted evidence support the allegation that each Defendant has sold infringing products. The Copyright Act protects particular expressions of ideas, not general ideas, Hobbs v. John, 722 F.3d 1089, 109495 (7th Cir. 2013), holding modified by Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc., 832 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2016)), and none of the submitted material shows the particular expression of ideas for which Plaintiff claims protection. As a result, the Court remains unable to discern whether Plaintiff is likely to succeed on its infringement claim and thus whether injunctive relief is warranted. See Design Basics, LLC v. Kerstiens Homes & Designs, Inc., 1 F.4th 502, 503 (7th Cir. 2021) ("To establish copyright infringement, Design Basics must prove 'ownership of a valid copyright' and that Kerstiens 'cop[ied] constituent elements of the work that are original'"; "wrongful copying as the lingo goes, 'requires substantial similarities between the defendant's work and protected elements in the plaintiff's copyrighted work.'") (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tele. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); Design Basics LLC v. Signature Construction, Inc., 994 F.3d 879, 887-88 (7th Cir. 2021)). If Plaintiff pursues an amended complaint and renewed motions, she must correct these deficiencies, if she can do so consistent with her obligations under Rule 11. Mailed notice
译文：尊敬的约翰·罗伯特·布莱基面前的一分钟：原告对一系列被告提起了侵犯版权的诉讼，并寻求至少在一开始通过化名进行诉讼。见5.原告还寻求许可暂时封存她的起诉书、列出被指名的被告的“附表A”以及原告的版权登记证书的副本。身份证。“无名诉讼在总体上是不受欢迎的，尤其是在本巡回法庭。”XYZ Corp.诉合伙企业和非法人团体，载于附表A，编号21-CV-06471,2022年WL 180151，见*12(N.D.IL.2022年1月20日)。第七巡回法院“一再表示不支持当事人匿名诉讼，因为匿名诉讼违背了公众公开司法程序的权利，也违背了公众知道谁在使用由公共税收资助的法院设施和程序的权利。要匿名诉讼，当事人必须证明‘特殊情况’，这一点既超过了有利于被指认的当事人的公共政策，也超过了匿名可能导致的对对方的不利。”身份证。(引用无名氏诉维尔案。载于“联邦判例汇编”第3集第819卷，第372,37677页(第七巡回法庭)。参见《无名氏诉史密斯》案，载于《联邦判例汇编》第三辑，第429卷，第706,710页(第七巡回法庭)。(见“美国最高法院判例汇编”第3集，第112卷，第869,872页(第七巡回法庭)]。1997))。在这里，原告辩称，假名诉讼和封存诉状和附表A仍然是“防止被告在执行临时限制令之前了解这些程序的必要”。5 1.她辩称，如果被告过早地了解这些程序，“可能的结果是相关文件证据被销毁，资产被隐藏或转移到外国司法管辖区，侵权网站被转移或瘫痪”，这将“阻碍基本法律的目的，并将干扰本法院授予救济的权力”。身份证。但原告并没有对假名提出具体的论点；事实上，在这个地区，每天都有许多这样的案件在没有匿名原告的情况下提起诉讼。原告没有解释为什么要求的封闭令(这将防止被告知道他们被起诉)本身仍然不足以缓解她所确定的关切；她也没有解释为什么本案在其他方面是例外的。出于这些原因，正如本法院以前所裁定的那样，见克拉拉·麦卡利斯特诉合伙企业案，第24-cv-01848号，第13页(N.D.2024年3月18日)，法院驳回了原告以假名5继续进行的许可请求。此外，由于原告未能在任何未决的诉状上表明自己的身份，法院在不影响的情况下驳回了她的诉状1，并不损害地驳回了她要求封存5、9页的请求、她提出的要求Tro 6的动议以及她要求许可提交超过8页的动议。7/10/24动议日期受到了打击。如果原告选择寻求修正的申诉和修正的动议，她应该确保她的诉状提供事实和法律基础，将316名被告加入单一诉讼。只有当针对被告的索赔是“关于或产生于同一交易、事件或一系列交易或事件”，并且对所有被告都存在共同的法律或事实问题时，将多名被告合并到一个侵犯版权的诉讼中才是合适的。美联储。R.Civ.P.20(A)(2)(A)-(B)。最初的起诉书简单地声称，被告“共享唯一的识别符，如提供销售的未经授权产品的设计元素和相似性，建立了它们之间的逻辑关系，并暗示被告的非法业务产生于相同的交易、事件或一系列交易或事件”。2 10.但结论并不一定遵循指控的事实；每个在线零售商以相同或类似的方式开设商店的可能性是平等的。例如，参见雅诗兰黛·科斯姆斯。有限公司诉合伙企业及非法人团体，载于附表A《联邦判例汇编》第334卷第182、188-89页(N.D.IL.2020)。此外，尽管原告声称每个被告都在伊利诺伊州境内销售侵权产品，使属人管辖权适当，但粗略审查提交的截图证据不能支持这一指控，例如，见[7-4]在4，8；[7-7]在2，6，10；[7-13]在4。提交的证据也不支持关于每个被告都销售侵权产品的指控。《著作权法》保护的是特定的思想表达，而不是一般的思想[《霍布斯诉约翰》案，载于《联邦判例汇编》第3集第722卷，第1089,109495页(第七巡回法庭)]。[参见《联邦判例汇编》第3集第832卷，第755页(第七巡回法庭)]一案。2016))，提交的材料中没有一份显示原告要求保护的观点的具体表述。因此，法院仍然无法辨别原告是否有可能在其侵权索赔中胜诉，从而无法确定是否需要禁制令救济。参见《设计基础》，LLC诉Kerstiens Home&Designs，Inc.，《联邦判例汇编》第4卷第1卷，第502,503页(第七巡回法庭)。2021)(“要确立版权侵权行为，设计基础必须证明‘有效版权的所有权’，并且Kerstiens‘COP[IED]原创作品的构成元素’”；“用行话说，‘错误复制’要求被告的作品与原告受版权保护的作品中的受保护元素之间有很大的相似性。‘”)(引用Feist Publ‘ns，Inc.诉农村电信案。服务生。载于《美国最高法院判例汇编》第499卷，第340页，第361页(1991)；《设计基础公司诉签名建筑公司》，载于《联邦判例汇编》第三辑，第994卷，第879、887-88页(第七巡回法庭)。2021年))。如果原告寻求修改的申诉和重新提出的动议，她必须纠正这些不足之处，如果她能这样做，符合规则11下的义务。邮寄通知
|
| 07/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff RC to seal document sealed document, [7]
译文：原告RC要求密封文件的动议密封文件，[7]
|
| 07/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff RC for leave to file excess pages
译文：原告RC请求允许提交多余页面的动议
|
| 07/01/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff RC for temporary restraining order
译文：原告RC提出的临时限制令动议
|
| 06/25/2024 | 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.
译文：秘书通知：根据当地规则73.1（b），该法院的一名美国治安法官可以进行该民事诉讼的所有诉讼程序。如果各方同意由目前指定的美国治安法官进行本案的所有诉讼程序，包括审判、最终判决的进入和所有审判后诉讼程序，各方必须在所附的同意表上签名。本同意书只有在各方签署的情况下才有资格提交。双方还可以在任何联合文件中表示同意治安法官的管辖权，包括联合初始状态报告或拟议的案件管理令。
|
| 06/25/2024 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).
译文：案件分配给尊敬的约翰·罗伯特·布莱基（John Robert Blakey）。被指定为治安法官Beth W。詹茨。案例分配：随机分配。（民事类别3）。
|
| 06/24/2024 | MOTION by Plaintiff RC to seal document sealed document 2
译文：原告RC要求密封文件的动议密封文件2
|
| 06/24/2024 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff RC by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr
译文：大卫·李·古尔布兰森（David Lee Gulbransen，Jr）为原告RC出庭
|
| 06/24/2024 | CIVIL Cover Sheet
译文：公民封面
|
| 06/24/2024 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff RC Complaint, Ex. 1, and Schedule A
译文：原告RC投诉的密封文件，例如。1和附表A
附件： 1:Exhibit Exhibit 1 2:(Appendix Schedule A) |
| 06/24/2024 | COMPLAINT filed by RC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22172391.
译文：投诉由RC提交;备案费405美元，收据编号AILNDC-22172391。
|
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
