#	Date	Description
[+] 1	2025-07-16	COMPLAINT filed by Tyrone Acierto; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23760617.
		Exhibit Exhibit 1
2	2025-07-16	SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Tyrone Acierto Schedule A to Complaint
3	2025-07-16	CIVIL Cover Sheet
4	2025-07-16	ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Tyrone Acierto by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr
5	2025-07-16	MOTION by Plaintiff Tyrone Acierto to seal document sealed document[2]
[+] 6	2025-07-17	MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC
		CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Albert Berry, III. 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.)
7	2025-07-21	MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 34 separate Defendants in this single copyright infringement suit, see 1, 2. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that joinder is proper "as, on information and belief, the Defendants are engaged in a coordinated scheme, and the rights asserted against them arise out of the same series of transactions and occurrences. On information and belief, common questions of fact pertaining to the Defendants will arise in this action." 1 4. But the allegations remain conclusory, a mere recitation of the rule's requirements. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant Internet Stores "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," id. 9, 11, and that the "Infringing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated." Id. 23. These allegations remain unsupported by Plaintiff's submissions; indeed, Plaintiff failed to even submit the asserted photographs, making it impossible to assess the degree of interrelatedness of the Defendants or Plaintiff's likelihood of success on its claim. For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint. And denies as moot Plaintiff's motion to seal 5. Mailed notice.