2025-cv-06657

COMPLAINT filed by Nicholas D'Amario; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23685881.

Exhibit Exhibit 1

Declaration Declaration of Plaintiff

Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 2 of 7)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario Schedule A to Complaint

Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Plaintiff

Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 3 of 7)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen

Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 4 of 7)

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr

Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 5 of 7)

MOTION by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario to seal document sealed document[2]

Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 6 of 7)

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (Text entry; no document attached.)

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. (Text entry; no document attached.)

MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

(Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Part 7 of 7))

MOTION by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario for temporary restraining order

MEMORANDUM by Nicholas D'Amario in support of motion for temporary restraining order[7]

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff

MOTION by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario for leave to file excess pages

MOTION by Plaintiff Nicholas D'Amario to seal document sealed document, [9]

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, [10], is granted. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, [7], is denied. Plaintiff seeks entry of an ex parte temporary restraining order. However, his attorney has not "certifie[d] in writing any efforts made to give notice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B). Additionally, while counsel's declaration attempts to show "the reasons why [notice] should not be required," it appears to rely on the premise that any temporary restraining order would freeze defendants' assets to ensure they can pay any money judgment plaintiff may obtain. "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." Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (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 id. 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. Plaintiff's motions to file under seal, [5], [11], are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [9], [9-1], [9-2], [9-3], [9-4], [9-5], [9-6], are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly by 8/21/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 8/21/2025, 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, Ltd. 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).

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Nicholas D'Amario of all remaining defendants

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, [37]. This dismissal took effect without court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Waetzig v. Haliburton Energy Servs., 145 S. Ct. 690, 694 (2025). Civil case terminated.