MAILED copyright report with order dated 2/26/2026 to Registrar, Washington DC
Sigmaxgo LLC v. THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A
案件进展
31 条记录ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: In this case, Plaintiff attempted to join defendants it has already conceded may not properly be joined in one suit, see 26 at 1-2 (indicating that Plaintiff sued the named defendants in a prior case before Judge Pacold, but then voluntarily dismissed them when Judge Pacold challenged joinder). Although joinder decisions may involve some measure of discretion, repeatedly naming the exact same group or subgroup of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the Plaintiff believes to be hospitable to Plaintiff's own theory of joinder constitutes a willful abuse of the judicial process. If Plaintiff had a good faith factual and legal basis to join these defendants, it could have pressed its position in the prior case (and appealed in due course if appropriate), but it declined to do so. Instead, when challenged, Plaintiff cut and ran, then filed a new suit, seeking to join the same parties based upon the same allegations. That strategy not only constitutes an egregious form of forum shopping, it also consumes scarce judicial resources, as Plaintiff asks judge after judge to make the same exact determination, hoping for a more favorable outcome. Based upon Plaintiff's abuse of the judicial process, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice. See, e.g., Fuery v. City of Chicago, 900 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) ("District courts 'possess certain inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. That authority includes the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.' "); Salmeron v. Enter. Recovery Sys., Inc., 579 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Sanctions meted out pursuant to the court's inherent power are appropriate where the offender has willfully abused the judicial process or otherwise conducted litigation in bad faith"; "though particularly severe, the sanction of dismissal is within the court's discretion."); In re Shao, No. 1:23-CV-13808, 2025 WL 933807, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2025) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal based upon the debtor's "egregious forum shopping"); Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships, No. 1:25-cv-03459 19 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing case for the same abuse of the judicial process). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.
案件结案MEMORANDUM by Sigmaxgo LLC re: Order to Show Cause
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff's submissions in connection with their amended complaint and renewed motions confirm that its assertion of personal jurisdiction as to the two defendants named in the amended complaint remains predicated solely upon Plaintiff's test buys, made in connection with this case. See 21 15. The allegations thus undermine the existence of personal jurisdiction, see, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"); and these allegations similarly undermine any claimed likelihood of success on the merits. The Court thus dismisses the first amended complaint and denies as moot Plaintiff's pending motions 18, 19, 22. The 2/18/25 Notice of Motion date is stricken. The 2/25/26 show cause deadline stands, see 24. Mailed notice.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and an amended Schedule A, which removes several of the defendants identified in the initial complaint and names just two defendants. But it appears that Plaintiff has named one or more of the defendants named in this lawsuit in a prior case asserting the same intellectual property. See 1 3 ("Pursuant to LR40.4 this case is related to earlier filed case 2025-cv-9549 and 2025-cv-10616, which dealt or deal with some of the same intellectual property as this case."). Repeatedly naming the same group of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the plaintiff believes to be hospitable to joinder constitutes egregious forum shopping and an abuse of judicial process. Plaintiff must, therefore, show cause, in writing by 2/25/26, why this case should not be dismissed. See Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships, No. 1:25-cv-03459 19 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing case based upon the same abuse of the judicial process). Mailed notice.
NOTICE of Motion by Konrad Val Sherinian for presentment of motion for temporary restraining order 19, motion for leave to file excess pages 22, motion to seal document 18 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 2/18/2026 at 11:00 AM.
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC for leave to file excess pages
DECLARATION of Konrad Sherinian regarding motion for temporary restraining order 19
原告提交TRO申请MEMORANDUM by Sigmaxgo LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 19 renewed
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC for temporary restraining order renewed
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC to seal document sealed document 17
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC First Amended Schedule A
FIRST AMENDED complaint by Sigmaxgo LLC against THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 12 separate defendants in this single copyright infringement suit asserting multiple works, see 1, 2. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). The complaint lumps all defendants together and alleges, in a conclusory manner, that they "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 at 8, 11, 15. But the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the alleged facts; it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner. See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Moreover, the screenshot evidence submitted in connection with Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order belies these allegations, see 10. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint 1 for improper joinder and denies Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief 6. The Court denies as moot the motions to seal 11 and for leave to file excess pages 12 and strikes the 1/14/26 Notice of Motion date as to all motions. To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of all defendants in this single action, it may do so by 2/10/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff pursues an amended complaint and revised motions, it should ensure that its pleadings support joinder of all defendants and that its submissions demonstrate a likelihood of success as to each defendant on each asserted claim. Plaintiff should also ensure that its submissions support the exercise of personal jurisdiction as to each Defendant; in this regard, the mere maintenance of a website, even a fully interactive website accessible in Illinois, remains insufficient. E.g., Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). Mailed notice.
原告提交TRO申请NOTICE of Motion by Konrad Val Sherinian for presentment of motion to seal document 11, motion for temporary restraining order 6, motion for leave to file excess pages 12 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 1/14/2026 at 11:00 AM.
原告提交TRO申请NOTICE of Motion by Konrad Val Sherinian for presentment of motion to seal document 11, motion for temporary restraining order 6, motion for leave to file excess pages 12 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 1/14/2026 at 11:00 AM.
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC for leave to file excess pages
MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC to seal document sealed document 2, sealed document 10
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC Screenshots and Evidence of Infringement
DECLARATION of Feifei Ju regarding motion for temporary restraining order 6
原告提交TRO申请DECLARATION of Konrad Sherinian regarding motion for temporary restraining order 6
原告提交TRO申请MEMORANDUM by Sigmaxgo LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 6
原告提交TRO申请MOTION by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC for temporary restraining order
原告提交TRO申请ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC by Depeng Bi
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC by Konrad Val Sherinian
CIVIL Cover Sheet
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Sigmaxgo LLC
COMPLAINT filed by Sigmaxgo LLC; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24560009.
CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).
