|
[+]
1
|
2026-03-11 |
COMPLAINT filed by Rona Springham; JURY. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24837203. |
|
|
(Exhibit Exhibit 1) |
|
2
|
2026-03-11 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Rona Springham Schedule A to Complaint |
|
3
|
2026-03-11 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
4
|
2026-03-11 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Rona Springham by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr |
|
[+]
5
|
2026-03-11 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Rona Springham to seal document sealed document 2 |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. 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. |
|
6
|
2026-03-12 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion for leave to temporarily seal documents [5] is granted. Mailed notice. |
|
7
|
2026-03-23 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Rona Springham for temporary restraining order |
|
[+]
8
|
2026-03-23 |
MEMORANDUM by Rona Springham in support of motion for temporary restraining order[7] |
|
|
Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen |
|
|
Declaration Declaration of Plaintiff |
|
|
Exhibit Exhibit 1 |
|
9
|
2026-03-23 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Rona Springham Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Plaintiff |
|
10
|
2026-03-23 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Rona Springham to seal document sealed document[9] |
|
11
|
2026-03-23 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Rona Springham for leave to file excess pages |
|
12
|
2026-03-25 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The Court requires that any motion for a temporary restraining order and/or asset freeze is accompanied by a declaration from an attorney of record that provides the following information. First, to demonstrate the immediate harm necessary to grant the drastic remedy of an ex parte temporary restraining order, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant has sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing product(s) within the last two months and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Generally, evidence that a defendant has sold or offered to sell the infringing products within the last two months may include: (1) screenshots of the listings collected within the last two months; (2) screenshots older than two months with an attestation that the listings reflected in the screenshots have been checked within the last two months and were active; or (3) evidence of a purchase by a customer in Illinois within the last two months. Second, as relevant to personal jurisdiction, without which any temporary restraining order or asset freeze would be invalid, the declaration must confirm that each named defendant sold at least one allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois and describe the evidence supporting this confirmation. Here, "sold" means that the defendant accepted an order and payment for an allegedly infringing product to be shipped to Illinois. Third, to assure that Court that the rights of defendants who have not yet been served are being appropriately protected, the declaration must identify the case number(s) and assigned judge(s) for any pending case(s) brought by the plaintiff(s) against any of the named defendants, noting whether the intellectual property at issue was the same or different than in this case. If it is the same, the declaration should describe the disposition of the other case. The Court will address any motion for a temporary restraining order only after receipt of the described declaration, which can be filed contemporaneously with the motion. Additionally, to the extent Plaintiff also makes a motion for expedited discovery or for an order permitting electronic service of process, Plaintiff should submit a proposed order for that relief that is separate from the proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint. The proposed order for the TRO and asset restraint should name the relevant defendants directly in the order, without reference to Schedule A. Mailed notice. |
|
13
|
2026-03-25 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Plaintiff's motions to seal and for leave to file excess pages [10] [11] are granted. Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order [7] is granted in part and denied in part. The requests for expedited discovery and electronic service are granted. However, the requests for a temporary restraining order and asset restraint are denied without prejudice. The complaint [1] and Plaintiff's declaration [8-2] fail to include facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of loss of goodwill and reputation to a known brand recognizable by consumers which is necessary to demonstrate irreparable harm in this case. See Delgado v. Schedule A, 24-cv-11940, Dkt. 17 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 19, 2024). Plaintiff's statements that his images "are widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade" are some evidence of loss of goodwill and reputation, but more objective evidence is necessary in order to grant an ex parte temporary restraining order. See, e.g., Spin Master Ltd. v. The Partnerships etc. on Schedule A, 24 C 3006, Dkt. # 16 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2024) (declaration containing allegations the Court found sufficient to establish irreparable harm from a copyright violation); Peanuts Worldwide LLC v. The Partnerships etc. on Schedule A, 24 C 8685, Dkt. # 17 (N.D. Ill Sept. 24, 2024 (same). If Plaintiff would like an order entered pertaining to expedited discovery and electronic service, he should submit a separate proposed order. Mailed notice. |
|
[+]
14
|
2026-03-25 |
MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC. |
|
|
(List of Copyrights) |
|
15
|
2026-03-30 |
SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 3/30/2026. Mailed notice. |
|
16
|
2026-04-08 |
SEALED Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 4/8/2026. Mailed notice. |
|
17
|
2026-04-08 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: On 3/25/2026, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's request for both a temporary restraining order and asset restraint, and granted Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery and electronic service. [13] Thereafter, the Court inadvertently entered two orders that indicated there was a temporary restraining order in place. Those orders are dissolved and the Clerk is directed to remove them from the docket. Plaintiff should submit a proposed order only as to expedited discovery and electronic service. Mailed notice. |
|
18
|
2026-04-10 |
ORDER for Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 4/10/2026. Mailed notice. |
|
19
|
2026-04-13 |
SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) COZYEASE by Plaintiff Rona Springham |
|
[+]
20
|
2026-04-13 |
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Partnerships and unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A |
|
|
NEW PARTIES: COZYEASE added to case caption. |
|
21
|
2026-04-13 |
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rona Springham as to COZYEASE on 4/13/2026, answer due 5/4/2026; Partnerships and unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A on 4/13/2026, answer due 5/4/2026. |
