|
[+]
1
|
2025-04-28 |
COMPLAINT filed by Thomas Edward Wood; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23403755. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit 3 |
|
|
(Exhibit 4) |
|
2
|
2025-04-28 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood Schedule A to Complaint 1 |
|
3
|
2025-04-28 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
4
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Keith A. Vogt |
|
5
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Adam Grodman |
|
6
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre |
|
7
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Christopher Romero |
|
8
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Monica Rita Martin |
|
9
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Yanling Jiang |
|
[+]
10
|
2025-04-28 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Thomas Edward Wood by Yi Bu |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. 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,) |
|
11
|
2025-04-29 |
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. |
|
12
|
2025-04-29 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has sued 204 separate defendants for infringement of 12 separate copyrights. See 1, 2. The complaint lumps all Defendants together and alleges infringement generally of the copyrighted works. 1 at 38 ("Each Defendant, without the permission or consent of Plaintiff, has sold and continues to sell online pirated derivative works of the copyrighted" works.). But joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that the "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and that "the Infringing Products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the Infringing Products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated." 1 at 7, 10, 31. But these allegations remain conclusory and unsupported, and the Court thus need not accept them. To be sure, similar website layouts do not necessarily mean the defendants' alleged infringement arises out of the same transaction; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to support the joinder of infringement claims asserting 12 copyrighted works against 204 defendants and thus dismisses the complaint 1. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its allegations to justify the joinder of all claims against all defendants, it may do so by 5/30/25. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice. |
|
[+]
13
|
2025-05-27 |
AMENDED complaint by Thomas Edward Wood against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
14
|
2025-05-27 |
Amended Schedule A to Complaint 1, Schedule A 2 and Amended Complaint 13 by Thomas Edward Wood |
|
[+]
16
|
2025-05-27 |
MEMORANDUM in Support of 15 Exparte Motion |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Declaration of Keith A. Vogt |
|
|
(Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration) |
|
17
|
2025-05-27 |
Presentment for Exparte Motion 15 NOTICE of Motion by Keith A. Vogt for presentment of before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/11/2025 at 11:00 AM. |
|
18
|
2025-06-10 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff initially filed a complaint seeking to sue 204 separate defendants in this single copyright infringement suit, see 1, 2. Once the case was reassigned to this Court, however, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which names just one Defendant, and thus avoids any joinder issues. Plaintiff may thus proceed on its amended complaint 13. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's submissions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and for electronic service of process 15 and strikes the 6/11/25 Notice of Motion date. Mailed notice. |
|
22
|
2025-06-16 |
ORDER for leave to conduct expedited discovery and service of process by e-mail and/or electronic publication. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 6/16/2025. Mailed notice. |
|
[+]
21
|
2025-06-18 |
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Thomas Edward Wood as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 6/18/2025, answer due 7/9/2025. |
|
|
(Declaration of Service) |
