Jeff Bartels v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 7/10/2024. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 07/10/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Jeff Bartels in support of motion for default judgment 28 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Declaration of Keith A. Vogt)(Vogt, Keith) (Entered: 06/28/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels for default judgment as to Against the Defendants Identified in First Amended Schedule A (Vogt, Keith) (Entered: 06/28/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Jeff Bartels in support of motion for preliminary injunction 20 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Keith A. Vogt, # 2 Exhibit 1, of Keith A. Vogt)(Vogt, Keith) (Entered: 06/06/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Jeff Bartels for preliminary injunction (Vogt, Keith) (Entered: 06/06/2024)

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 5/29/2024. (exr, ) (Entered: 05/29/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal 11,motion for leave to file extra pages 12, and ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order and other relief 13 are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 14 ) establish that, were Defendants to learn of these proceedings before the execution of Plaintiff's requested preliminary injunctive relief, there is a significant risk that Defendants could destroy relevant documentary evidence and hide or transfer assets beyond the reach of the Court. Accordingly, subject to unsealing at an appropriate time, Plaintiff may for now file under seal the documents identified in the motion to seal and appearing at docket entries 2, 13, and 15 . The Temporary Restraining Order being entered along with this minute order shall also be placed under seal. In addition, for the purpose of the motions cited above, Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). Specifically, and as noted above, were Defendants to be informed of this proceeding before a TRO could issue, it is likely assets and websites would be redirected, thus defeating Plaintiff's interests in identifying Defendants, stopping Defendants' infringing conduct, and obtaining the equitable accounting that, at this point, Plaintiff states that he may pursue. These facts justify, among other relief, the imposition of a prejudgment asset restraint against Defendants in an amount not to exceed $50,000 per separate account. In addition, the Court finds, at least for now on this limited and one-sided record and without prejudice to revisiting the issue, that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they directly target their business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois. Specifically, Defendants have targeted sales to Illinois residents by setting up and operating e-commerce stores that target United States consumers using one or more Seller Aliases, offer shipping to the United States, including Illinois, accept payment in U.S. dollars, and have sold products that infringe Plaintiff's copyrights to residents of Illinois. The evidence presented to the Court also shows that Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits (including evidence of active infringement and sales into Illinois), that the harm to Plaintiff is irreparable, and that an injunction is in the public interest. An injunction serves the public interest because of the consumer confusion caused by infringing goods, and there is no countervailing harm to Defendants from an order directing them to stop infringement. Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to Defendants. As several judges have previously noted, there may be reason to question both the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action and whether Plaintiff will pursue an accounting (which Plaintiff asserts as justification for an asset freeze), but at this preliminary stage, the Court is persuaded that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence of coordinated activity and the prospect of an accounting to justify the requested relief as to all Defendants. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify Defendants and to implement the asset freeze. If any Defendant appears and objects, the Court will reconsider the asset freeze and joinder. Enter sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Mailed notice. (exr, ) (Entered: 05/29/2024)