#	Date	Description
[+] 1	2025-08-08	COMPLAINT filed by Grumpy Cat Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23860351.
		Ex. 1 - TM Registrations
		Ex. 2 - CBP
		Ex. 3 - IP Rights
		Ex. 4 - DHS
		Ex. 5 - Copyright 1 of 2
		Ex. 5 - Copyright 2 of 2
[+] 7	2025-08-09	MOTION by Plaintiff Grumpy Cat Limited to seal document exhibit 3 - Seal Schedule A to the Complaint -
		CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Albert Berry, III. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (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.)
8	2025-08-14	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 99 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and that the infringing acts arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. But experience has shown this is rarely the case. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024). Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder on or before August 20, 2025. Alternatively, by the same date, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint naming one or more defendants; however, if the plaintiff names multiple defendants, the plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. All pending motions are hereby stayed pending resolution of the joinder issue. Further, should the plaintiff (1) file an amended complaint naming fewer defendants in this case, (2) file a separate complaint naming one or more of the remaining defendants originally named in this case, and (3) assert the same claims against those defendants, the Court reminds the plaintiff of Local Rule 40.3(b)(2), which requires the plaintiff to indicate the number of the this case and the name of the judge to whom it was assigned. Mailed notice.
9	2025-08-14	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff's motion to seal 7 is denied. "The court may for good cause shown enter an order directing that one or more documents be filed under seal." L.R. 26.2(b). "[A] district court must be sensitive to the rights of the public in determining whether any particular document, or class of documents, is appropriately filed under seal." United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 228 (7th Cir. 1989). Here, the plaintiff seeks to seal the identities of the 99 defendants it has sued. The plaintiff argues that it intends to seek temporary ex parte relief and that sealing is necessary to prevent the defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to execution of the temporary restraining order. The plaintiff claims that the defendants would destroy evidence and hide or transfer assets, which would frustrate the purpose of the plaintiff's lawsuit. But the plaintiff has not presented any evidence to support these claims. And the Court declines to join in the plaintiff's rampant speculation. Therefore, the motion to seal is denied and Dkt. No. 3 is unsealed. In fact, the plaintiff's claims are so speculative and generalized that the Court questions whether the plaintiff conducted an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances and whether the factual contentions have any evidentiary support. The Court also questions whether the legal contention, that sealing is necessary to avoid frustrating the purpose of the underlying lawsuit or interfering with the plaintiff's ability to pursue or enforce any judgment, is supported by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extending existing law. Consequently, the Court orders the plaintiff to show cause why it has not violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) by making generalized assertions not specific to the defendants named in this lawsuit. The rule to show cause hearing is set for August 27, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice.
[+] 10	2025-08-15	AMENDED complaint by Grumpy Cat Limited against dingbingbaihuo and terminating The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto
		Ex. 1 - TM Registrations
		Ex. 2 - Infringement Listing
		Ex. 3 - CBP
		Ex. 4 - IP Rights
		Ex. 5 - DHS
		(Ex. 6 - Amended Schedule A)
[+] 11	2025-08-26	MEMORANDUM order on motion to seal document, set deadlines/hearings, 9 by Grumpy Cat Limited - Response to Show Cause Order -
		Werber Decl.
		Ex. A - page with case list
		Ex. B - page with defendant list
		(Ex. C - Milwaukee 25-00273 Order)
12	2025-08-27	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: Show cause hearing held. Plaintiff's supplement to the memorandum is due on or before 9/24/2025. Mailed notice.
13	2025-09-10	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 08-27-2025 before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Order Number: 52936. Court Reporter Contact Information: Krista Burgeson, krista_burgeson@ilnd.uscourts.gov. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings. Redaction Request due 10/1/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/13/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/9/2025.