M O v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff has filed a "Notice of Dismissal" 18. Because the Notice of Dismissal was filed before the opposing parties served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the case is dismissed without prejudice consistent with the terms of the Notice and by operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A) notice of dismissal "is self-executing and effective without further action from the court"). Each party is to bear its own fees and costs. The hearing set for 8/26/2025 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.

原告撤诉/结案

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order and prejudgment asset restraint (Dkt. 9) is denied substantially for the reasons provided in the opinion denying similar requested relief in Eicher Motors Limited v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, F. Supp. 3d, 2025 WL 2299593 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2025). Plaintiff's amended motion to seal (Dkt. 6) is granted subject to later reconsideration; the documents provisionally filed under seal may remain under seal for the time being. Plaintiff's earlier motion to seal (Dkt. 4) is dismissed as moot. The request for alternative service (Dkt. 9) is granted. An in-person status hearing is set for 8/26/2025 at 10:00 a.m.; lead counsel must appear in person at the hearing, which will be stricken if Plaintiff elects to dismiss this action voluntarily. Plaintiff is invited to file a motion seeking certification of an interlocutory appeal of this ruling. Mailed notice.

原告撤诉/结案

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: On the Court's initiative, all pending motions are held in abeyance, and the case is stayed pending further order. This stay, which the Court is entering in other so-called "Schedule A" cases on its docket where requests for temporary restraining orders remain pending, is intended to permit the Court the opportunity to reassess its previous approach in Schedule A litigation involving Lanham Act, Copyright Act, and Patent Act claims typically brought on an ex parte basis against various online merchants. This reassessment will consider, among other things, whether: (1) ex parte proceedings are appropriate in these types of cases; (2) the routine sealing of parts or all of the docket is appropriate; (3) the routine granting of temporary restraining orders on an ex parte basis is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; (4) the routine granting of prejudgment asset restraints is a sound exercise of judicial discretion; and (5) the mass joinder of defendants is appropriate under the circumstances typically present in Schedule A cases. Plaintiff remains free, of course, to dismiss this action voluntarily if they wish to pursue their claims in another District, but no supplemental briefing on the pending motions may be filed absent advance leave of Court. Mailed notice.

原告撤诉/结案