TRO101 logo TRO101

2025-cv-08783

Martin v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

法院:伊利诺伊州北法院
发案日期:2025-07-28
原告:Jose Martin
代理律所:David Gulbransen
诉讼类型:版权
# Date Description
[+] 1 2025-07-28 COMPLAINT filed by Jose Martin; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23803819.
2 2025-07-28 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Jose Martin Schedule A to Complaint
3 2025-07-28 CIVIL Cover Sheet
4 2025-07-28 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jose Martin by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr
5 2025-07-28 MOTION by Plaintiff Jose Martin to seal document sealed document[2]
[+] 6 2025-07-29 MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC
7 2025-08-24 MOTION by Plaintiff Jose Martin for temporary restraining order
[+] 8 2025-08-24 MEMORANDUM by Jose Martin in support of motion for temporary restraining order[7]
9 2025-08-24 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Jose Martin Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff
10 2025-08-24 MOTION by Plaintiff Jose Martin for leave to file excess pages
11 2025-08-24 MOTION by Plaintiff Jose Martin to seal document sealed document[9]
12 2025-08-24 NOTICE of Motion by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr for presentment of motion to seal document[11], motion for temporary restraining order[7], motion for leave to file excess pages[10], motion to seal document[5] before Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 8/28/2025 at 09:30 AM.
13 2025-08-27 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso:Plaintiff's ex parte motions [3] [15] [20] are granted, and no appearance is necessary. The plaintiff's written submissions establish that if defendants were informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating plaintiff's interests in identifying defendants, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. In addition, the submitted evidence establishes a likelihood of success on the merits, the harm to plaintiff is irreparable and an injunction is in the public interest because infringement interferes with the plaintiff's ability to control its intellectual property. Those rights cannot be fully compensated by money damages. 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 is an effective, perhaps the most effective, way to communicate with defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and implement the asset freeze. If any defendant were to appear and object, the court will take a fresh look at the asset freeze, joinder, and personal jurisdiction. The court finds that security in the amount of $,000$1,000 per defendantis sufficient to secure the injunctive relief. Notice mailed by Judge's staff
14 2025-08-28 SEALED TEMPORARY Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 8/28/2025. Notice mailed by Judge's staff
15 2025-09-09 SURETY BOND in the amount of $31,000 posted by Jose Martin