LG Electronics Inc. et al v. 48_tucker

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. [15]. Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a claim prior to a defendant's filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or after an answer has been filed where the dismissal bears the signatures of both parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In this case, neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment has been filed by Defendant. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Notice, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled cause is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/24/2026.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc.

Clerk's NOTICE of Compliance re [13] Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order: Defendant 48_tucker added.

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. On June 25, 2026, the Court entered its Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule "A" Causes of Action, which provides that any "motions for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or alternative service must include allegations that justify joinder of multiple defendants[.]" See (ECF No. 4) at 4. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed its Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Early Discovery & Order Restraining Transfer of Assets (the "TRO Motion"), where it asserted that joinder of fifty-nine (59) Defendants is proper because: (1) there is substantial evidentiary overlap in the facts as to each Defendant, because they are each selling LG-branded water filters for refrigerators and operating eBay or other online stores that source products from China; (2) there is "a strong likelihood that Defendants have engaged in coordinated actions or are commonly owned or controlled"; and (3) forcing Plaintiffs to file individual lawsuits against each Defendant would frustrate judicial economy. (ECF No. 11) at 6-9. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 requires that allegations against each defendant arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). "Simply committing the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purposes of joinder." Omega, SA v. Individuals, Bus. Entities, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 650 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (quoting AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). Despite Plaintiff's efforts to link Defendants based off their pattern of infringement, Plaintiff ultimately "speculates as to the sellers' relationships without supporting evidence." See Price v. Individuals, P'Ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 821 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1334 (M.D. Fla. 2026). Specifically, Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants likely have engaged in coordinated action or even are commonly owned is based on mere speculation, which is not nearly sufficient to show that joinder is warranted. See id. at 1334-35 (dismissing as to all but one defendant on allegations substantially similar to the ones in instant case). Finally, the Court notes that its discretion to sever misjoined parties is "virtually unfettered." See Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2014). The Court chooses to exercise that discretion here, where Plaintiff would avoid $23,490.00 in filing fees if allowed to proceed against all fifty-nine (59) Defendants in this case. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the TRO Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants except Defendant 48_tucker. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Defendant 48_tucker as the only defendant in this action. In light of this Order, the TRO Motion (ECF No. 11) and Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants (ECF No. 12) (together, the "Motions") are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff seek to proceed with this action, it may refile the Motions within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/14/2026.

Plaintiff's MOTION for Order Authorizing Alternative Service re [9] Order on Ex Parte Motion, Order on Motion to Seal, by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. Responses due by 7/27/2026.

Plaintiff's MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, Early Discovery and Order Restraining Assets by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. Responses due by 7/27/2026.

Plaintiff's NOTICE of Filing Schedule A to Complaint by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. re [9] Order on Ex Parte Motion, Order on Motion to Seal

PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal. [8]. Therein, Plaintiff requests that Schedule A to Plaintiff's Complaint "remain under seal until the Court has the opportunity to rule on Plaintiffs' request for temporary ex parte relief and, if granted, the relief ordered therein has been effectuated." Id. at 2-3. Motions to file documents under seal or to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously in intellectual property rights cases are disfavored. See Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) ("The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern."); Chicago Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process."); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name."). Accordingly, such motions shall be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiffs argue temporary sealing is required because "Plaintiffs have good reason to believe that providing advance notification of Plaintiffs' claims would cause Defendants to hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets, inventory, and related records beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and thereby thwart the Court's ability to grant meaningful relief." [8] at 2. Plaintiffs' Motion fails to articulate any particular reason these particular Defendants are likely to destroy evidence. Further, the Motion fails to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing of portions of the court file. See, e.g., Zorro Prods., Inc. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'Ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-CV-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *2-5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2023) (explaining why a motion to seal will rarely be justified in a Schedule A case). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [8] is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file Schedule "A" as an attachment to the Complaint on the public docket on or before July 13, 2026. Further, Plaintiffs filed a sealed Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order [6] and sealed Ex Parte Motion for Alternative Service [7] (collectively, the "Sealed Ex Parte Motions"). In light of the Court denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal, all filings must now appear on the public docket. However, in lieu of automatically unsealing the filings and revealing information Plaintiffs may not wish to make public, the Court DENIES the Sealed Ex Parte Motions without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the Sealed Ex Parte Motions and the accompanying exhibits on the public docket on or before July 13, 2026. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this Action. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/9/2026.

MOTION to Seal Schedule A to the Complaint per Local Rule 5.4 by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. Responses due by 7/22/2026.

Plaintiff's NOTICE of Verified Response to Omnibus Order by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. re [4] Order to Show Cause

Order

Order to Show Cause

Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent.

COMPLAINT against The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A. Filing fees $ 405.00 receipt number AFLSDC-19682325, filed by LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics Alabama, Inc.