2025-cv-13829

COMPLAINT filed by Marshall Amplification PLC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24331405.

(Exhibit 1)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC Exhibit 2 regarding complaint 1

(Exhibit 2)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC Schedule A regarding complaint 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC for leave to file under seal

CIVIL Cover Sheet

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Marshall Amplification PLC

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Marshall Amplification PLC

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC by Justin R. Gaudio

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC by Luana Faria De Souza (Faria De Souza, Luana)

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (Text entry; no document attached.)

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

AMENDED complaint by Marshall Amplification PLC against Xingrunshangmao and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Exhibit 1

(Exhibit 2)

Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal by Marshall Amplification PLC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff initially filed a complaint seeking to sue nine separate defendants in this single trademark infringement suit, see [1], [3]. Once the case was reassigned to this Court, however, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which names just one Defendant, and thus avoids any joinder issues. See [13]. But before Plaintiff may proceed, it must file a supplemental report confirming whether it has previously named any of the nine defendants identified in this case in a prior case asserting infringement of the same intellectual property. See Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-03459, at [19] (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing the case because plaintiff previously named defendants in a prior case and dismissed them to avoid an unfavorable joinder ruling, which constitutes forum shopping). Plaintiff shall file the report by 12/1/25. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's notice of withdrawal, [14], the motion for leave to file under seal [4] is withdrawn, and the Clerk shall terminate the entry as a pending motion. Mailed notice.

Plaintiff's Supplemental Response to Order 15 by Marshall Amplification PLC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief 16, which indicates that, prior to initiating this case, Plaintiff named all of the defendants identified in this case in three prior cases. In two of those prior cases, Plaintiff voluntarily amended its complaint to drop all but one defendant once the case was assigned to a particular judge. Such conduct suggests that Plaintiff lacks a good faith factual and legal basis to join the defendants in a single proceeding. And repeatedly naming the same group of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the plaintiff believes to be hospitable to joinder constitutes an abuse of process. As a result, the Court issues an order to show cause on or before 12/15/2025, why this case should not be dismissed for an abuse of process. Mailed notice.

Plaintiff's Response to Order [17] by Marshall Amplification PLC

Exhibit 1

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC by Hannah Elizabeth Dawson

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.

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 1/5/2026: Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this case, Plaintiff has attempted to join defendants it has already thrice conceded (twice before Judge Alexakis and once before Judge Chang) may not properly be joined in one suit, see [18] at 7-8. Although joinder decisions may involve some measure of discretion, repeatedly naming the exact same group or subgroup of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the Plaintiff believes to be hospitable to Plaintiff's own theory of joinder constitutes a willful abuse of the judicial process. If Plaintiff had a good faith factual and legal basis to join these defendants, it could have pressed its position in any of the prior cases before the assigned judge (and appealed in due course if appropriate), but it declined to do so. Instead, when challenged, Plaintiff cut and ran, then filed a new suit, seeking to join the same parties based upon the same allegations. That strategy not only constitutes an egregious form of forum shopping, it also consumes scarce judicial resources, as Plaintiff asks judge after judge to make the same exact determination, hoping for a more favorable outcome. Based upon Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice. See, e.g., Fuery v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) ("District courts 'possess certain inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. That authority includes the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.' "); Salmeron v. Enter. Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Sanctions meted out pursuant to the court's inherent power are appropriate where the offender has willfully abused the judicial process or otherwise conducted litigation in bad faith"; "though particularly severe, the sanction of dismissal is within the court's discretion."); In re Shao, No. 1:23-CV-13808, 2025 WL 933807, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2025) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal based upon the debtor's "egregious forum shopping"); Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships, No. 1:25-cv-03459 [19] (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing case for the same abuse of the judicial process). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.