|
1
|
2025-11-24 |
COMPLAINT filed by FOT, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24392944. |
|
2
|
2025-11-24 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
3
|
2025-11-24 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff FOT, LLC by James Edward Judge |
|
[+]
4
|
2025-11-24 |
MOTION by Plaintiff FOT, LLC for leave to file documents under seal |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeannice W. Appenteng. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (qrtr,) |
|
|
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. (qrtr,) |
|
5
|
2025-11-24 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff FOT, LLC Unredacted Complaint |
|
[+]
6
|
2025-11-26 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal [4] is granted as to the request to file certain documents under seal and denied as to the request to proceed under a pseudonym. Exceptional circumstances have not been shown to proceed anonymously. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) ("The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]"); Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 377 (7th Cir. 2016) ("To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate 'exceptional circumstances' that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity."); XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2020 WL 6681360, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2020) ("No-name litigation is the rare exception, not the Rule."). "There is insufficient evidence. that Schedule A defendants are taking advantage of the case-tracking option to such an extent that it is materially impeding brand owners' enforcement efforts." XYZ Corp. v. Partn. & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 2022 WL 180151, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2022). Accordingly, by 12/3/2025, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that lists plaintiff's true name. Moreover, upon review of the complaint the Court sua sponte raises the proprietary of joinder of 91 defendants in this case. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). By 12/3/2025, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described in Estee Lauder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint with a single defendant or a smaller subset of defendants along with its memorandum explaining specifically why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189. Mailed notice |
|
|
NEW PARTIES: DTGPC added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A |
|
[+]
7
|
2025-12-03 |
Unredacted AMENDED complaint by FOT, LLC against DTGPC |
|
|
Ex. 1 |
|
|
Ex. 2 |
|
|
Ex. 3 |
|
|
Ex.4 |
