2025-cv-01231

COMPLAINT filed by Greg & Company, LLC.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23047194.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

(Exhibit 4)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. Schedule A to the Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. by Christopher Romero

MOTION by Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. for leave to file under seal

MOTION by Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. for leave to file excess pages

MEMORANDUM in support of 13 Exparte motion

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-4, of of Keith A. Vogt's declaration

Declaration of Greg Giordano

(Exhibit 1, of Greg Giordano's declaration)

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

(Copyright)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Greg & Company, LLC. Sealed Exhibit 2, Declaration of Greg Giordano regarding memorandum in support of motion, 14

Exhibit 2-1

Exhibit 2-2

(Exhibit 2-3)

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.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order, prejudgment asset restraint, and expedited discovery (Dkt. 13) 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 motion to seal (Dkt. 11) is granted subject to later reconsideration; the documents provisionally filed under seal may remain under seal for the time being. The request for alternative service (Dkt. 13) and motion for leave to file excess pages (Dkt. 12) are granted. An in-person status hearing is set for 8/26/2025 at 11:00 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.