TRO101 logo TRO101

2024-cv-00432

Jonas Sebastian Jodicke v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A

法院：伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期：2024-01-17
原告：Jonas Sebastian Jodicke
代理律所：Keith
诉讼类型：版权
# Date Description
[+] 1 2024-01-17 COMPLAINT filed by Jonas Sebastian Jodicke; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21532151.
2 2024-01-17 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke Schedule A to Complaint 1
3 2024-01-17 CIVIL Cover Sheet
4 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Keith A. Vogt
5 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Yanling Jiang
6 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Yi Bu
7 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Adam Grodman
8 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre
9 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Monica Rita Martin
10 2024-01-17 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke by Christopher Romero
11 2024-01-18 MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC
12 2024-01-19 MOTION by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke for leave to file under seal
[+] 13 2024-01-19 MOTION by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke for leave to file excess pages
[+] 15 2024-01-19 MEMORANDUM in support of 14 Exparte motion
[+] 16 2024-01-19 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Jonas Sebastian Jodicke regarding memorandum in support of motion, 15
17 2024-06-03 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 12, motion for leave to file excess pages 13, and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order 14, which includes a motion for electronic service of process, are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 15-1 at 14) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2 and 16. The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that he may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products using infringing versions of Plaintiff's copyrighted works to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. 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. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice.
[+] 18 2024-06-03 SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 6/3/2024. Mailed notice.
19 2024-06-03 NOTICE of Correction
20 2024-06-05 SURETY BOND in the amount of $10,000 posted by Jonas Sebastian Jodicke. (Document not scanned)
21 2024-06-12 MOTION by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke for preliminary injunction
24 2024-06-13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion 21 for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all remaining Defendants with the following statement: "The Court has taken the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no Defendant appears and objects on or before 6/19/2024." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. For the reasons stated in the Court's order 17 entering the temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the TRO is extended to and including the date on which the Court adjudicates the motion for a preliminary injunction. See H-D Mich., LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 843-45 (7th Cir. 2012). Because this extension exceeds the maximum duration for a TRO under FRCP 65(b), this extension "becomes in effect a preliminary injunction that is appealable, but the order remains effective." Id. at 844. Mailed notice.
25 2024-06-13 CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke regarding order on motion for preliminary injunction, text entry, 24
26 2024-06-18 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to Defendant no. 3 Joybuy
28 2024-06-27 MOTION by Defendant RuiDA for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint[1] Unopposed Motion to Extend
29 2024-06-28 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Defendant 51 RuiDA's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint 28 is granted. Defendants 51 RuiDA must answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's complaint on or before 7/24/2024. Mailed notice.
30 2024-07-03 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction 21 is granted. Enter separate preliminary injunction order. Plaintiff's filings establish that Plaintiff has acted expeditiously to protect its interests and that there remains a significant risk Defendants will transfer relevant assets beyond the Court's reach. For these reasons, as well as the reasons provided in the whole of Plaintiff's filings and as stated by the Court in connection with entry of the TRO, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the Court finds that the balance of harms favors Plaintiff and that a preliminary injunction serves the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from the marketing of counterfeit or infringing goods. Plaintiff has also certified and established 25 that it provided electronic notice to Defendants of the pendency of this case and provided a link to a website containing relevant case documents, but, despite the Court having provided 24 the opportunity to do so, no remaining Defendant has objected to the motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to ensure that all Defendants listed on Schedule A are added to the docket within five business days. The Clerk is directed to unseal any and all previously-sealed documents. Mailed notice.
[+] 31 2024-07-03 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/3/2024. Mailed notice.
33 2024-07-10 MOTION by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke for default judgment as to Against the Defendants Identified in First Amended Schedule A
37 2024-07-11 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for default judgment [33] is granted. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/11/2024. Mailed notice.
38 2024-07-11 DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/11/2024. Mailed notice.
40 2024-07-12 MOTION by Plaintiff Jonas Sebastian Jodicke to reopen case Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Civil Action No. 1-24-cv-00432
41 2024-07-12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: An in-person hearing on Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case 40 is set for 7/17/2024 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 2125. Lead counsel must be present in person at that hearing. Mailed notice.
42 2024-07-15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: By request of the parties, the motion hearing set for 7/17/2024 is stricken and reset for 8/1/2024 at 10:00 A.M. Lead counsel must be present in person at that hearing. Mailed notice.
43 2024-07-22 MOTION by Defendant RuiDA for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint 1 Second Unopposed Motion for Extension
44 2024-07-24 STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant no. 51 RuiDA
45 2024-07-29 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case 40 and Defendant's motion for extension of time 43 are dismissed as moot. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for 8/1/2024 is stricken. Mailed notice.