|
[+]
1
|
2026-01-29 |
COMPLAINT for Copyright Infringement filed by Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd.; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24660718. |
|
|
Exhibit 1 to the Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit 2 to the Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit 3 to the Complaint |
|
[+]
2
|
2026-01-29 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. Exhibit 1 to the Complaint regarding complaint, [1] |
|
|
Exhibit 2 to the Complaint |
|
|
(Exhibit 3 to the Complaint) |
|
3
|
2026-01-29 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
[+]
4
|
2026-01-29 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. to seal |
|
|
Declaration of Joseph W. Droter in support of Motion for Leave to File Under Sea |
|
|
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
5
|
2026-01-29 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter regarding MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. to seal [4] |
|
6
|
2026-01-29 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. |
|
7
|
2026-01-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. by Joseph Wendell Droter |
|
8
|
2026-01-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. by Katherine Marilyn Kuhn |
|
[+]
9
|
2026-01-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. by Nazly Aileen Bayramoglu |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable April M. Perry. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). |
|
|
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. |
|
[+]
10
|
2026-01-30 |
MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. |
|
|
*Restricted* |
|
11
|
2026-02-02 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's Motion to Seal [4] is granted in part. Plaintiff may seal its Schedule A and infringement evidence but may not seal its federally registered copyrights as they are already known to the public. Accordingly, Plaintiff must file Exhibit 1 to the complaint on the public docket. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) of joining 30 defendants to this action. See, e.g, Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff is reminded that "[c]ourts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps, Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Plaintiff should reference this Court's opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where the Court expressed its views on joinder in Schedule A cases. By 2/16/2026, Plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the aforementioned cases and describing why each of the defendants is properly joined to each of the others. In the alternative, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 2/16/2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Finally, it appearing that the case filed is a "Schedule A" case, Plaintiff is directed to the Court's standing order on its website directing the filing of the Court's Schedule A Template within 14 days. To the extent Plaintiff intends to file a request for service via electronic means, that motion must be filed by 2/16/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
|
[+]
12
|
2026-02-04 |
First AMENDED complaint by Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. against Shenzhenshidapengxinquyifangbuluofushishangxing d/b/a yifang and terminating The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A |
|
|
Exhibit 1 to the First Amended Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Complaint |
|
13
|
2026-02-04 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. Exhibit 2 to the First Amended Complaint regarding amended complaint, [12] |
|
14
|
2026-02-04 |
SUPPLEMENT to order on motion to seal, set deadlines, [11] Schedule A Template in compliance with Docket No. 11 |
|
15
|
2026-02-05 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Schedule A Template [14]. However, Plaintiff has failed to list "any defendants included in the Schedule A in this case that Plaintiff has previously named as a defendant in any prior complaint or Schedule A case." Plaintiff shall file an amended Schedule A Template by 2/12/2026, noting if the answer to the question is "none," or if not, what the correct answer is. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
|
16
|
2026-02-05 |
SUPPLEMENT to set deadlines, [15] Amended Schedule A Template in compliance with Docket No. 15 |
|
[+]
17
|
2026-02-06 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. for service by publication, Electronic Service and Expedited Discovery |
|
|
Memorandum in support of Motion for Electronic Service and Expedited Discovery |
|
|
Declaration of Joseph W. Droter in support of Motion for Electronic Service and |
|
[+]
18
|
2026-02-06 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Shenzhen Daisili Commercial Co., Ltd. for temporary restraining order |
|
|
Memorandum in support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order |
|
|
Declaration of Joseph W. Droter in support of Motion for Temporary Restraining O |
|
|
Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
|
Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
|
Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
|
Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
|
Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Joseph W. Droter |
|
|
Declaration of Bingzhi Hou in support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order |
|
19
|
2026-02-06 |
NOTICE of Motion by Joseph Wendell Droter for presentment of motion for service by publication, [17], motion for temporary restraining order, [18] before Honorable April M. Perry on 2/18/2026 at 10:00 AM. |
|
20
|
2026-02-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's motion for Electronic Service of Process and Expedited Discovery [17] is granted. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it is an effective way to communicate with an online marketplace defendant. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendant. Because electronic service is being permitted, Plaintiff is directed to effectuate that service within 30 days or to file a status report with the Court within 30 days explaining why it is unable to do so. Enter order. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
|
21
|
2026-02-09 |
ORDER for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-Mail and/or Electronic Publication. Signed by the Honorable April M. Perry on 2/9/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
|
22
|
2026-02-09 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff's motion for entry of a temporary restraining order [18] is granted, consistent with the accompanying order. Plaintiff's written submissions establish that if Defendant was informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, assets would likely be redirected, defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendant, stopping the infringement, and obtaining an accounting. The Court finds that (1) the submitted evidence establishes a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois); (2) the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable and cannot be fully compensated by money damages; (3) an injunction is in the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by counterfeit goods and infringement interferes with Plaintiff's ability to control its intellectual property; and (4) there is no countervailing harm to Defendant from an order directing it to stop infringement. If Defendant were to appear and object, the Court will revisit the asset freeze and personal jurisdiction. A $1,000 bond is sufficient to secure the injunctive relief. Enter order. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |
|
23
|
2026-02-09 |
SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable April M. Perry on 2/9/2026. (jcc,) |
