|
[+]
1
|
2026-04-29 |
COMPLAINT filed by Revelyst Operations, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25046099. |
|
|
(Exhibit 1) |
|
8
|
2026-04-29 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
|
2
|
2026-04-29 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet |
|
3
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
|
4
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
|
5
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
|
6
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by John Wilson |
|
7
|
2026-04-29 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
|
9
|
2026-04-29 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Sealed Schedule A |
|
10
|
2026-04-29 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Revelyst Operations, LLC |
|
[+]
11
|
2026-04-29 |
Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Revelyst Operations, LLC |
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
|
|
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. |
|
12
|
2026-04-29 |
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
|
13
|
2026-04-29 |
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
|
14
|
2026-05-12 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation |
|
15
|
2026-05-12 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication |
|
[+]
16
|
2026-05-12 |
MEMORANDUM by Revelyst Operations, LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 15 |
|
|
Declaration Mills Declaration |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Declaration Hierl Declaration |
|
|
Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 1 |
|
|
Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 2 |
|
|
Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 3 |
|
|
(Exhibit Hierl Exhibit 4) |
|
17
|
2026-05-12 |
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations, LLC Exhibit 2 to Mills Declaration regarding memorandum in support of motion, 16 |
|
18
|
2026-05-12 |
NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion to seal document 8, motion for temporary restraining order, 15, motion for leave to file excess pages 14 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 5/19/2026 at 08:30 AM. |
|
19
|
2026-05-18 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) The Plaintiff's motion 14 for extra pages is granted. Given the goal of asset restraint, the motion 8 to file under seal is granted. (2.) On review of the complaint, Schedule A, and the TRO brief, the TRO motion 15 is denied without prejudice. First, the Court raises the propriety of joinder of the 10 Defendants, R. 9. Unless the Court is missing something, neither the complaint nor the brief in support of the TRO motion explain the basis for joinder. The Plaintiff shall review the opinion in Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 18789 (N.D. Ill. 2020), and file a memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder by 05/29/2026. In lieu of the memorandum, by the same deadline, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint with (a) one defendant or (b) a subset of the defendants along with a memo explaining why joinder of those defendants is proper. (3.) No prima facie case for personal jurisdiction has been established. The contention that availability to Illinois would establish prima facie jurisdiction anywhere in the country. Having said that, for purposes of granting expedited discovery, it would be appropriate to allow the Plaintiff to obtain information on personal jurisdiction. Under Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 109394(7th Cir. 2026), the Plaintiff must be able to show at least one sale of an infringing product into Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction. If the early discovery does not reveal a sale of an infringing product into Illinois, then personal jurisdiction will not be established. The Court raises this issue on its own given the ex parte, non-adversarial presentation at this stage of the case. Federal courts must carefully review filings when presented by just one side in an ex parte setting. See American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314, 325 (7th Cir. 1984) (explaining that courts must "carefully consider" the need for TROs given the ex parte context); In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April 2002 Grand Jury, 347 F.3d 197, 205 (7th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the court had "conducted a careful in camera and ex parte review" of the record). The Plaintiff may file a motion for early discovery (a subset of the current TRO motion) by 05/29/2026. (4.) To track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called), a tracking status hearing is set for 06/05/2026 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice. |
