2024-cv-11246

COMPLAINT filed by Jeff Bartels; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22676917.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels Schedule A to Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jeff Bartels by Yi Bu

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. 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 Jeff Bartels for leave to file under seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels 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 Jeff Bartels

(Exhibit 1, of Jeff Bartels' Declaration)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff Bartels regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

Exhibit 2-4

Exhibit 2-5

Exhibit 2-6

Exhibit 2-7

(Exhibit 2-8)

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, temporary asset restraint, 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 therefore 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

Schedule A to the Complaint 1 and Schedule A 2 by Jeff Bartels

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jeff Bartels regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

Exhibit 2-3

Exhibit 2-4

Exhibit 2-5

Exhibit 2-6

Exhibit 2-7

(Exhibit 2-8)

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

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jeff Bartels as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 1/28/2025, answer due 2/18/2025.

(Declaration of Service)

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to [Certain] defendants

MOTION by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels for default judgment as to the Defendants Identified in First Amended Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by Jeff Bartels in support of motion for default judgment 21

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

(Declaration of Keith A. Vogt)

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to [Certain] defendants

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal, 23, defendant Nos. 5 Tyenaza, 7 AIRNOGO, 11 OpenMax, 13 Pyramid tip, 15 Ceiather, 16 WChiho Q, 17 Full of stars.min, 72 Jinshisheng, 130 Erjinpenm, 131 Changmusheng, 132 Hearite, 133 Lhiodmall, 134 Miangastore, 135 Bicheness, 136 Tarshphine, 137 Rushijin, 138 Hareemi, 139 HOKARUA, 140 Murdoffiu, 141 Mizhichuiyu, 142 Gonyden, 143 KEWENN, 144 PeggyDoll, 145 Chuangji, 146 Baixuntong, 147 JiaHuin, 148 WUNNO, 149 Rejuvena, 150 GERUINJ, 151 Ulthilift, 152 AntiGuyue, 153 LongYTong, 154 SHLT Mall, 155 Bbanquetan, 156 Weisidun, 157 Zweiton, 158 Yanxinjia are terminated.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Any defendant objecting to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 21, must enter an appearance and file a written objection by 3/31/2025. If no objections are filed, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice. By 3/31/2025, plaintiff should file an amended Schedule A and send to the proposed order box an amended proposed default judgment order identifying the remaining defendants plaintiff seeks default judgment against.

First Amended Schedule A by Jeff Bartels

(Corrected) First Amended Schedule A by Jeff Bartels

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: No defendant has responded to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 21. The motion, 21, is granted. Based on the evidence submitted in support of the temporary restraining order and the motion for entry of default and default judgment, and the admission of liability by virtue of the default, plaintiff has established that the infringement was willful, that damages should be awarded in the amount of $100,000 per defendant, and that a permanent injunction should be entered. Plaintiff has shown that the infringement of its marks causes it irreparable harm in the form of diminished goodwill and brand confidence, damage to plaintiff's reputation, loss of exclusivity, and loss of future sales; that monetary damages are inadequate to address these harms; and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. No defendant has appeared to argue otherwise, thus, the court also finds that the balance of the hardships favors an injunction. All pending motions are denied as moot. Enter Final Judgment Order. Civil case terminated.

DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 4/3/2025:

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to Defendant no. 1 mazn.cm