2024-cv-10639

COMPLAINT filed by Joseph Murray Hautman; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22616869.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman Schedule A to the Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman by Christopher Romero

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. 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.

MOTION by Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman for leave to file under seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman for leave to file excess pages

MEMORANDUM in support of 13 Exparte motion

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-4 of Keith A. Vogt's declaration

Declaration of Joseph Murray Hautman

(Exhibit 1, of Joseph Murray Hautman's declaration)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Joseph Murray Hautman

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

(Exhibit 2-4)

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 12, is granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 11, is denied. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and electronic service of process, 13, is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 11. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 11, is denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 2, 15, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025. To the extent plaintiff's motion, 13, seeks a temporary restraining order and expedited discovery, the motion is denied. To the extent the motion, 13, seeks electronic service of process, the motion is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO.

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Joseph Murray Hautman Exhibit 2, Declaration of Joseph Murray Hartman regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

(Exhibit 2-4)

Public Schedule A to the Complaint 1 and Schedule A 2 by Joseph Murray Hautman

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/1/2025, plaintiff should file a status report updating the court on the status of this case, including the status of service.

STATUS Report Pursuant to Minute Entry Order 21 by Joseph Murray Hautman

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/10/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021).

AMENDED complaint by Joseph Murray Hautman against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

(Exhibit 1)

[Amended] Schedule A to the Complaint 1 ; Schedule A 2 ; and Amended Complaint 24 by Joseph Murray Hautman

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Joseph Murray Hautman as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 4/10/2025, answer due 5/1/2025.

(Declaration of Service)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 5/30/2025, plaintiff is directed to file a joint status report updating the court on the status of this case.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Joseph Murray Hautman as to the Defendant(s) Identified in Amended Schedule A

STATUS Report by Joseph Murray Hautman

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received the notice of voluntary dismissal, 29. This dismissal took effect without court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Waetzig v. Haliburton Energy Servs., 145 S. Ct. 690, 694 (2025). Civil case terminated.

MAILED Copyright report with certified copy of minute order dated 6/3/2025 to Registrar, Washington DC