Saunders v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion [22] for entry of a preliminary injunction. In connection with that motion, which is entered and continued, Plaintiff must forthwith serve all remaining Defendants with the following statement: "The Court has taken the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement and will consider the motion unopposed if no Defendant appears and objects on or before 5/2/2025." Plaintiff must file proof of service of the Court's statement within two business days of service. Mailed notice.

SEALED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER signed by the Honorable John F. Kness on 3/24/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal [5] [11], ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order, which includes a motion for electronic service of process [7], and motion for leave to file excess pages [11] are granted in part. Plaintiff's submissions (e.g., Dkt. 8-1) 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] and [9]. 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, the Court holds, dubitante, that Plaintiff's filings support proceeding (for the time being) on an ex parte basis under FRCP 65(b)(1). (This holding is subject to reconsideration in future "Schedule A" cases.) 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 using infringing versions of Plaintiff's copyrighted works 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 the propriety of joining all Defendants in this one action, 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.