Bigfoot 4X4, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto
最近更新时间：2025-07-22
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-07222
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-18 00:00:00
诉讼类型：
律所：
原告：Bigfoot 4X4, Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A Hereto
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 1 | 2025-07-18 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: The Court previously entered an order 13 questioning whether Plaintiff had met its burden of establishing that permissive joinder of 90 Defendants in this case was proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Plaintiff was granted leave to file either a supplemental memorandum, or an amended Schedule A and amended complaint consistent with that ruling. In response, Plaintiff filed 14 a sealed amended complaint with a sealed Schedule A as an exhibit listing 8 Defendants, 15 an exhibit to the amended complaint listing trademark information, 16 the declaration of Ann C. Trent which discusses how Plaintiff is harmed by trademark infringement, 17 a sealed exhibit to the declaration of Ann C. Trent with screenshots of the Temu website showing the infringing products for sale, 18 a memorandum in support of joinder, and 19 an exhibit to that memorandum identifying each Defendants' infringing product in the exhibit to the declaration of Ann C. Trent 17. In short, Plaintiff's joinder argument involves descriptions of the 8 Defendants selling the same product on Temu. Plaintiff presumably contends that such similarities support its conclusory allegation that Defendants' actions arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, but the Court remains unconvinced. See Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024) (finding that plaintiff had merely identified a "small subset of the 181 defendants who are copycats of Plaintiff's style and each other, but that does not make them all partners in collusion) (emphasis in original); Bailie, et al. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 2150, 2024 WL 2209698, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2024) (finding use of same images and similar product titles and descriptions insufficient to support joinder); Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 21 C 5993, 2021 WL 5396690, at * 2 (Nov. 18, 2021) (holding that plaintiff's speculation that defendants were interrelated because they shared notable features "including use of the user name registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images" did not support joinder); Bose Corp. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 511, 514 (N.D. Ill. Fed. 19, 2020) (holding that even if defendants were selling the same products and defendants' webpages were identical "that would not overcome the likelihood that Defendants are just copycats" and that an allegation that defendants communicate through chat rooms and website based on "information and belief," without connecting any defendants to such chat rooms or websites, is insufficient to support joinder). Because Plaintiff has failed to cure the misjoinder here, the Court exercises its discretion to do so. Therefore, the Court dismisses Defendants 31, 35, 60, 65, 66, 68, and 85 without prejudice for improper joinder. This action will proceed as to Defendant 30 only. Finally, Plaintiff previously filed a motion to seal 8 its original Schedule A 9, and exhibit 2 to Ann C. Trent's declaration 17. Plaintiff, however, has since filed new sealed documents 14 19 without a properly noticed motion to seal articulating the basis for good cause to justify the sealing on an item by item basis. Any renewed motion to seal is due by 7/25/25. As a courtesy, the documents filed at 9 14 17 19 will remain under seal pending review of the anticipated renewed motion. If nothing is filed by that date, the documents filed those documents will be unsealed. The motion hearing set for 7/22/25 20 is stricken. Mailed notice. |
