Setyawan v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MEMORANDUM by Angus Setyawan in support of motion for default judgment 32 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 06/19/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Angus Setyawan for default judgment as to all remaining defendants (Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 06/19/2024)

MEMORANDUM by Angus Setyawan in support of motion for preliminary injunction 28 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Angus Setyawan for preliminary injunction (Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings:Plaintiff's motion for electronic service 21 is denied as moot as the Court previously granted plaintiff's request for such service in its order granting plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order 10, which also included such a request. The 5/31/24 tracking status hearing is stricken and re-set to 6/21/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice (cc, ) (Entered: 05/23/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: The Court has reviewed plaintiff's ex parte motion for extension of the TRO 18, in which plaintiff asks the Court for a second 14-day extension of the TRO entered on 3/27/24. Plaintiff's motion for extension of TRO is denied for the following reasons. First, plaintiff has already been granted one extension of the TRO, thus reaching the 28-day outer limit for a TRO issued without the consent of the enjoined parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2) ("[A TRO] expires at the time after entry--not to exceed 14 days--that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension."); H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012) ("In our view, the language of Rule 65(b)(2) and the great weight of authority support the view that 28 days is the outer limit for a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party, regardless of whether the TRO was issued with or without notice."). Second, and more importantly, pursuant to this Court's 4/15/24 order 14, the TRO expired on 4/24/24. Beyond stating simply that "the Clerk requires an active TRO to issue the Summons," plaintiff has provided no legal authority for a Court to extend a TRO that has already expired. And, on the contrary, certain authority would disagree. See generally, TransFirst Grp., Inc. v. Magliarditi, No. 217CV00487APGVCF, 2017 WL 1158072, at *2 (D.Nev. Mar. 28, 2017) ("I cannot extend the TRO entered by [another Judge] because that TRO expired."); Aerial Adventure Techonologies, LLC v. Naranjo, No. 523CV00018KDBDSC, 2023 WL 4843946, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2023) ("[I]t seems obvious to the Court that an expired TRO entered in state court cannot properly be 'extended.'"). Moreover, although a TRO that is extended beyond the 28-day limit becomes in effect a preliminary injunction, see H-D Michigan, 694 F.3d at 844-45, plaintiff failed to seek any such relief here in advance of the expiration of the TRO. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion 18 is denied. The 5/3/24 tracking status hearing is stricken and re-set to 5/31/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice (cc, ) (Entered: 05/02/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Angus Setyawan for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order (Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 04/29/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's motion for extension of the temporary restraining order 13 is granted. The TRO is extended to 4/24/24. Mailed notice (cc, ) (Entered: 04/15/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff Angus Setyawan for extension of time of Temporary Restraining Order (Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 04/11/2024)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey I Cummings: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages 8 is granted. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal 5 9 are granted in part and denied in part. At a minimum, plaintiff's submissions 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's request to seal certain documents (set forth in Dckt. #5 and #9) is granted. The temporary restraining order that is being entered contemporaneously with this order will also be placed under seal. Plaintiff's request to proceed under a pseudonym temporarily, however, is denied. As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "We have repeatedly voiced our disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings and to know who is using court facilities and procedures funded by public taxes. To proceed anonymously, a party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances that outweigh both the public policy in favor of identified parties and the prejudice to the opposing party that would result from anonymity." Doe v. Village of Deerfield, 819 F.3d 372, 376-77 (7th Cir. 2016). Here, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite "exceptional circumstances" to warrant proceeding anonymously under the factual scenario presented by the case, arguing solely without any supporting legal authority that "[p]roceeding pseudonymously... is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order." (Dckt. #5 at 1). Further, and more importantly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the safeguards already in place will not otherwise protect its interest in enforcing its rights. See XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 21-CV-06471, 2022 WL 180151, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 20, 2022) ("There is insufficient evidence... that Schedule A defendants are taking advantage of the case-tracking option to such an extent that it is materially impeding brand owners' enforcement efforts."). Finally, plaintiff's ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, asset restraining order, expedited discovery, and service of process by email 6 is granted. The evidence submitted by plaintiff shows 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 counterfeit 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. Expedited discovery is warranted to identify defendants and to implement the asset freeze. Enter Sealed Temporary Restraining Order. Status hearing set for 5/3/24 at 9:00 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). Mailed notice (cc, ) (Entered: 03/27/2024)

MOTION by Plaintiff AS for temporary restraining order (Gulbransen, David) (Entered: 03/05/2024)