|
[+]
1
|
2025-06-12 |
COMPLAINT filed by Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23618364. |
|
|
Exhibit A to Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit B to Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit C to Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit D to Complaint |
|
|
(Schedule A to Complaint) |
|
[+]
2
|
2025-06-12 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. -- (Unredacted) Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit A to Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit B to Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit C to Complaint |
|
|
(Exhibit D to Complaint) |
|
3
|
2025-06-12 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. -- (Unredacted) Schedule A to Complaint |
|
4
|
2025-06-12 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
5
|
2025-06-12 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. |
|
[+]
6
|
2025-06-12 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. by Trevor William Barrett |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Keri L. Holleb Hotaling. 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
|
2025-06-13 |
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC |
|
8
|
2025-06-18 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. to seal |
|
9
|
2025-06-18 |
NOTICE of Motion by Trevor William Barrett for presentment of motion to seal 8 before Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel on 6/25/2025 at 09:30 AM. |
|
10
|
2025-06-20 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 49 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. 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 July 2, 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 an amended complaint naming fewer defendants in this case and file a separate case naming one or more of the remaining defendants, the Court reminds the plaintiff of Local Rule 40.3(b)(2), which requires the plaintiff to indicate the number of the case and the name of the judge to whom it was assigned. Mailed notice |
|
11
|
2025-07-02 |
MEMORANDUM set deadlines, 10 by Neman Brothers & Associates, Inc. re Propriety of Joinder |
|
12
|
2025-07-03 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: For the reasons set forth in Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A," 24-cv-09401, docket entry no. 27, and for the following reasons, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for misjoinder. The plaintiff contends that bringing "49 separate causes of action against 49 separate defendants would be unfair, inefficient, and would result in needlessly duplicative work for multiple judges." That is not true here. As mentioned in Toyota, the work is the same for the Court. Further, pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(b)(2), which requires the plaintiff to indicate the number of this case and the name of the judge to whom it was assigned, means that all 49 cases will likely be heard by this Court. The plaintiff further posits that the Court should consider "the coordination amongst the e-commerce defendants." But the plaintiff only points to notices sent of recently filed lawsuits, which, by definition, is post-filing activity. The coordination relevant to the joinder inquiry, however, concerns the conduct that gives rise to the plaintiff's claims, which must occur before the claim is filed. Mailed notice. |
