| # | 日期 | 条目内容 |
|---|---|---|
| 26 | 2024/05/08 | MAILED Closing Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 25 | 2024/05/06 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: : The Court reviewed plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (Dckt. No. 24), which is self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice
尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持的庭审记录：法院审查了原告的自愿撤诉通知（案件编号24），该通知根据规则41(a)(1)(A)(ii)自动生效。案件已结案。民事案件终止。已发送通知。 |
| 24 | 2024/05/06 |
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Art Ask Agency Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of All Remaining Defendants
Art Ask Agency原告自愿撤诉通知，对所有剩余被告无偏见自愿撤诉 |
| 23 | 2024/04/22 |
TEMPORARY Restraining Order Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 4/22/2024. Mailed notice.
临时限制令。由尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官于2024年4月22日签署。已邮寄通知。 |
| 22 | 2023/12/28 |
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice.
年度提醒：根据地方规则3.2（附属机构通知），任何非政府方，除非个人或独资企业，必须在经过勤奋审查后提交一份声明，识别其所有已知的附属机构；如果该方未识别任何附属机构，则必须提交反映这一事实的声明。附属机构定义如下：任何直接或间接（通过拥有一个或多个其他实体）拥有一方5%或以上所有权的实体或个人。该声明应以PDF格式电子提交，并在CM/ECF中提示时输入附属机构。提醒律师，各方必须在先前报告的信息发生任何变化后三十（30）天内补充其附属机构声明。本命令是为了提醒所有记录在案的律师，如果需要更新，他们有义务提供有关额外附属机构的最新信息。如果律师对这一程序有任何疑问，此链接将提供额外信息。由执行委员会于2023年12月28日签署：邮寄通知。 |
| 21 | 2023/12/12 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for a TRO (Dckt. No. 9) is hereby granted in part. TRO to follow. Plaintiff filed a motion for TRO on the docket and neglected to email a Word version of the proposed TRO to the proposed order inbox, in violation of this Court's Standing. By December 15, 2023, the parties must email a Word version to the proposed order inbox: proposed_order_seeger@ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice.
在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：原告关于临时限制令（Dckt. No. 9）的动议部分获得批准。随后将发布临时限制令。原告在案件记录中提交了临时限制令的动议，但未按照法院规定，将拟议的临时限制令的Word版本发送到拟议命令收件箱，构成违规。各方必须在2023年12月15日前将Word版本的文件发送到拟议命令收件箱：proposed_order_seeger@ilnd.uscourts.gov。已发送通知。 |
| 20 | 2023/11/22 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 6) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings. is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 6) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[A]s a general matter [] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice.
尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官主持下的记录：原告关于封存文件的动议（案件号6）被驳回。原告请求本庭允许封存诉状中所谓的附件A（列出了在线卖家名称及其URL）所列被告名单，并请求封存支持临时限制令请求的相关材料。司法程序中存在强烈的公开性假设。“司法程序中的秘密是不受欢迎的。”Mueller诉Raemisch案，740 F.3d 1128, 1135（第七巡回法院2014年）；参见Mitze诉Saul案，968 F.3d 689, 692（第七巡回法院2020年）（指出“存在强烈倾向发布处置命令的假设”）；Duff诉Central Sleep Diagnostics, LLC案，801 F.3d 833, 844（第七巡回法院2015年）（指出“司法程序中的秘密通常是不受欢迎的”）。“影响联邦诉讼处理的文件通常对公众开放，即使诉讼当事人强烈偏好保密，除非有法律、规则或特权证明其保密性。”In re Specht案，622 F.3d 697, 701（第七巡回法院2010年）。“影响或支撑司法决策的文件对公众开放，除非它们符合商业秘密或其他长期保密类别的定义。”Baxter International, Inc.诉Abbott Laboratories案，297 F.3d 544, 545（第七巡回法院2002年）；参见Union Oil Co. of Cal.诉Leavell案，220 F.3d 562, 567（第七巡回法院2000年）（“即使是关于国家安全主张的争议也在公开中进行。”）。希望背离这一长期传统的当事人，即秘密诉讼，必须承担沉重负担。原告在此并未接近满足这一要求。原告对于请求保密的解释相当简短。“封存这部分文件是必要的，以防止被告在临时限制令执行前了解这些程序。如果被告过早了解这些程序，可能导致相关文件证据的销毁以及资产向外国司法管辖区的隐藏或转移，这将妨碍基础法律的目的并干扰本庭授予救济的权力。”参见封存动议（案件号6）。这是无数附件A案件中提供的相同复制粘贴样板，通常一字不差。原告没有提供具体理由认为被告会在本案中销毁文件。实际上，在附件A案件中，被告通常不提供文件，因为几乎所有案件中他们都未参与诉讼并最终被判违约。简单的事实是，附件A案件中的被告往往是外国卖家，根本不提供文件，因此为了保护文件而封存案件很可能是无意义的。此外，文件销毁的可能性并不是短期内封存文件的充分理由，因为原告显然计划在TRO送达后要求解封文件。在附件A案件中，资产转移至海外的可能性也不是秘密进行的充分理由。在某些类型的案件中，提交密封的单方面TRO动议是有意义的。例如，SEC经常寻求TRO以锁定不属于被告的资产（例如，通过起诉持有投资者资金的欺诈者）。在这些案件中，SEC经常提交密封的TRO动议，这是正确的。在这些案件中，密封请求是有意义的，因为如果欺诈者得知诉讼，可能会分散投资者的资产。锁定资产，不让欺诈者提前得知，有助于保护投资者并保留在案件结束时获得有意义的衡平法救济的可能性。当原告寻求资产冻结以确保未来衡平法救济的潜在恢复时，密封动议通常是有意义的。有时，为了在案件结束时获得衡平法救济的可能性，保密是必要的。但在附件A案件中，原告律师通常寻求法律上的补救措施，如法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平法上的金钱救济。寻求法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平法上的补救措施，影响资产冻结的计算。最高法院明确指出，除非当事人在寻求衡平法上的金钱救济，否则法院无权在案件开始时发布资产冻结。参见Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A.诉Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.案，527 U.S. 308（1999）。在Grupo Mexicano案中，最高法院裁定地区法院“无权发布初步禁令，阻止[被告]在[原告]合同损害赔偿索赔待决期间处置其资产。”Id. at 333。最高法院坚持“在衡平法院干预债务人使用其财产之前，需要有判决确立债务的长期规则。”Id. at 321。“一般来说，仅仅为了建立一个后来金钱损害赔偿可以从中满足的基金而预先资产限制是不恰当的。”参见Banister诉Firestone案，2018 WL 4224444，at *9（伊利诺伊州北区法院2018年）。如果在案件开始时原告请求并最终获得衡平法上的金钱救济，如利润核算，那么衡平法上的限制可能是可行的。参见Deckers Outdoor Corp.诉列在附件A上的未合并协会案，2013 WL 12314399（伊利诺伊州北区法院2013年）。但在附件A案件中，这种恢复几乎从未发生。附件A原告通常不请求并获得衡平法救济。相反，附件A原告匆忙进入法院，请求并获得资产冻结，获得违约判决，然后要求地区法院解冻资金并授予法定损害赔偿，而不是衡平法救济。在这种情况下，本庭不清楚使用任何冻结资金进行法定损害赔偿的恢复是否合适，因为法定损害赔偿是法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平法上的补救措施。事实上，附件A原告律师要求本地区法院在案件第一天通过资产冻结锁定资产，并密封进行。然后，在案件结束时，附件A原告获得法律上的补救措施，而不是衡平法上的补救措施，这意味着最初就没有资产冻结的正当理由。综上所述，如果原告寻求本庭可以授予的资产冻结，即仅为了未来衡平法救济的目的，本庭可能会考虑密封请求。但在本案中，原告没有表明将在案件结束时寻求衡平法上的金钱救济，因此现在没有资产冻结的基础。如果没有现在资产冻结的基础，那么现在也没有理由密封进行。如果你不能冻结它，你就不能密封它。已邮寄通知。 |
| 19 | 2023/06/28 |
STATUS Report Initial Status Report by Art Ask Agency
Art Ask Agency提交的初始状态报告 |
| 18 | 2023/04/14 |
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by June 28, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice.
在尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官面前进行的记录：初始状态报告应于2023年6月28日前提交。律师必须阅读法院网站上名为“初始状态会议和联合初始状态报告”的常设命令。各方必须根据规则26(f)就发现的自然、范围和持续时间进行协商。各方必须向法院提交两份文件。首先，各方必须在案卷上根据规则26(f)提交联合初始状态报告。法院网站上提供了联合初始状态报告的Word版本。所有各方都必须参与联合初始状态报告的准备和提交。法院要求联合报告，因此一方或另一方的提交是不够的。其次，各方必须将规则16(b)下的拟议时间表命令的Word版本通过电子邮件发送到法院的拟议命令收件箱。各方的主导律师必须参与提交初始状态报告。原告必须向所有其他方送达此命令。如果被告尚未收到程序送达，原告的律师必须联系法庭副手jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov以重新安排初始状态报告截止日期。原告在被告收到程序送达之前不应提交联合初始状态报告。各方必须真诚地讨论和解，并认真尝试友好解决此案。所有记录在案的律师必须阅读并遵守法院网页上的常设命令。请特别注意关于证词和发现的常设命令。邮寄通知。 |
| 17 | 2023/04/07 |
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (jk2,)
已将商标报告邮寄至弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市的专利商标局（jk2） |
| 16 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 6 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第2部分第6节展品 |
| 15 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 5 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第2部分第5节展品 |
| 14 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 4 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第2部分第4部分 |
| 13 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 3 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第2部分第3部分 |
| 12 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 2 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第二部分第二部分展品 |
| 11 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Exhibit 2 Part 1 of Strid Declaration
原告Art Ask Agency提交的封存文件，为Strid声明的第二部分第一部分 |
| 10 | 2023/04/06 |
MEMORANDUM by Art Ask Agency in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 9
Art Ask Agency提交的备忘录，支持临时限制令动议，编号9 |
| 9 | 2023/04/06 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Defendant Domain Names, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication
原告Art Ask Agency提出的临时限制令动议，包括临时禁令、临时转移被告域名、临时资产限制、加速发现程序，以及通过电子邮件和/或电子出版物进行服务程序的原告单方面动议。 |
| 2023/04/06 |
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.
书记员通知：根据本地规则73.1(b)，本法院的一位美国地方治安法官可主持本民事案件的全部诉讼程序。如各方同意由当前指定的美国地方治安法官主持本案包括审判、最终判决的作出及所有审后程序在内的全部诉讼程序，各方必须在附带的同意书上签名。此同意书仅在所有当事人签字后才可提交。各方亦可通过联合提交的文件，包括联合初始状态报告或拟议的案件管理命令，表达其同意由地方治安法官管辖。 |
|
| 2023/04/06 |
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment.
案件分配给尊敬的Steven C. Seeger法官。Beth W. Jantz法官被指定为治安法官。案件分配方式：随机分配。 |
|
| 8 | 2023/04/06 |
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Art Ask Agency
根据地方规则3.2，Art Ask Agency通知其附属机构 |
| 7 | 2023/04/06 |
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency Sealed Schedule A
原告Art Ask Agency封存的文件附表A |
| 6 | 2023/04/06 |
MOTION by Plaintiff Art Ask Agency to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
原告Art Ask Agency提出的封存文件动议，即原告申请封存文件的动议 |
| 5 | 2023/04/06 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Art Ask Agency by Robert Payton Mcmurray
Robert Payton Mcmurray代表原告Art Ask Agency出庭 |
| 4 | 2023/04/06 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Art Ask Agency by William Benjamin Kalbac
William Benjamin Kalbac代表原告Art Ask Agency出庭 |
| 3 | 2023/04/06 |
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Art Ask Agency by Michael A. Hierl
Michael A. Hierl代表原告Art Ask Agency出庭 |
| 2 | 2023/04/06 |
CIVIL Cover Sheet
民事封面页 |
| 1 | 2023/04/06 |
COMPLAINT filed by Art Ask Agency; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20515032.
Art Ask Agency提交的起诉书；要求陪审团审判。诉讼费402美元，收据编号AILNDC-20515032。 |