2025-cv-03473

COMPLAINT filed by Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23285782.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork Schedule A to Complaint [1]

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork by Yi Bu

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Jantz & Jantz GbR d/b/a Anita's & Bella's Art/Artwork

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3).

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.

Schedule A to Complaint [1] and Schedule A to Complaint [2] [PUBLIC VERSION] by Jantz & Jantz GbR

MEMORANDUM in Support of [14] Exparte Motion

Exhibit 1-1

Exhibit 1-2

Exhibit 1-3

Exhibit 1-4

Exhibit 1-5

Exhibit 1-6

Exhibit 1-7

Exhibit 1-8

Exhibit 1-9

Exhibit 1-10

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/9/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021).

AMENDED complaint by Jantz & Jantz GbR against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Amended Schedule A to Complaint [1], Schedule A [2] and Amended Complaint [17] by Jantz & Jantz GbR

MEMORANDUM by Jantz & Jantz GbR Establishing that Joinder is Proper

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's memorandum regarding the propriety of joinder. 19. Immediately prior to filing this memorandum, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed 111 defendants from the case. See 18. However, plaintiff has not discharged its obligation to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. 16. The "sameness of the accused products is not enough to establish that claims of infringement arise from the 'same transaction.'" In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 24-cv-607, 2024 WL 3338942, at *9 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2024) (Under Rule 20, "similar or even identical infringement by independent actors does not, standing alone, make infringement part of a common series of transactions or occurrences."); Rudd v. Lux Prods. Corp., No. 09-cv-6957, 2011 WL 148052, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 12, 2011) ("Simply alleging that Defendants manufacture or sell similar products does not support joinder under Rule 20."); Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ("[S]ome of the images and descriptions, even if similar to one another, are so generic that no inference of a connection between those defendants can be drawn."). Neither the memorandum nor the amended complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendants (who are online retailers) are engaged in a common scheme to manufacture, market, or sell the allegedly infringing product. Plaintiff states that "Defendants' conspicuous convergence on the same infringing design and dress cut suggest a coordinated, interrelated operation of dress production rather than independent creation." 19 at 3. Considering the cases cited above and the absence of specific allegations supporting this contention, the court is not convinced. Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental memorandum by 4/25/2025 why this case should not be dismissed or severed for failure to comply with the joinder restrictions under Rule 20.

Second Amended Schedule A to Complaint [1]; Schedule A [2], [13]; Amended Complaint [17]; Amended Schedule A [18] by Jantz & Jantz GbR

MEMORANDUM Establishing that Joinder is Proper

Exhibit 1

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's ex parte, sealed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process, [14], is stricken. Under Local Rule 26.2(c), "[t]he party seeking to file a document under seal must file a motion with the court. The sealing motion must be filed before or simultaneously with the provisional filing of the document under seal. Any document filed under seal without such a sealing motion may be stricken by the court without notice. Any motion seeking to seal a document or portion of document must articulate the basis for good cause to justify the sealing, and should do that on an item by item basis." Plaintiff has not filed a motion to seal prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the sealed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process. Accordingly, the sealed motion, [14], is stricken.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: In light of the second amended Schedule A, which names two defendants, 21, the court finds that plaintiff has discharged its obligation to show that joinder requirements have been satisfied. See 20. However, defendants who appear are not precluded from arguing that joinder is improper. Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 5/2/2025, updating the court on how it seeks to proceed in this litigation.

Motion by Jantz & Jantz GbR Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-mail and/or Electronic Publication Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM in support of [25] Plaintiffs Renewed Ex Parte Motion for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-Mail and/or Electronic Publication Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's declaration

STATUS Report Pursuant to Minute Entry [24] by Jantz & Jantz GbR

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/24/2025, the court struck plaintiff's ex parte, sealed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process on the grounds that "[p]laintiff has not filed a motion to seal prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the sealed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process." [23] (citing Local Rule 26.2(c)). Plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process, [25], is filed ex parte, under seal. Again, "[p]laintiff has not filed a motion to seal prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the sealed motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and electronic service of process." See [23]. Accordingly, the sealed motion, [25], is stricken. Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 5/13/2025, updating the court on how it seeks to proceed in this litigation.

MOTION by Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR for Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-Mail and/or Electronic Publication Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3)

MEMORANDUM by Jantz & Jantz GbR in support of motion for miscellaneous relief[29]

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

Exhibit 1-2, of Keith A. Vogt's Declaration

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, [29], is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/12/2025:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [29], is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). 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.

STATUS Report by Jantz & Jantz GbR

ORDER: The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a single original summons in the name of "XKEDClothing." The Clerk is also directed to issue a single original summons in the name of "PGClothing." Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/15/2025. Mailed notice

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) XKEDClothing. by Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) PGClothing. by Plaintiff Jantz & Jantz GbR

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jantz & Jantz GbR as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 5/20/2025, answer due 6/10/2025.

Declaration of Service_XKEDClothing

Summons Returned Executed _PGClothing

(Declaration of Service PG Clothing)

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Jantz & Jantz GbR

Declaration of Service_PG Clothing

Summons Returned Executed XKEDClothing

(Declaration Declaration of Service XKEDClothing)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 6/6/2025, addressing how plaintiff seeks to proceed with this litigation.

STATUS Report Pursuant to [41] by Jantz & Jantz GbR

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's status report, 42, which states that the parties have reached a settlement agreement, id. at 1. Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 6/24/2025, unless a notice of voluntary dismissal or stipulation of dismissal is filed before that date.

FILED IN ERROR. Modified on 6/10/2025.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs as to defendant no. 1 XKED Clothing and defendant no. 2 PG Clothing

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal, 45, which dismisses all defendants named in the operative Schedule A, 21. This dismissal took effect without court intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Waetzig v. Haliburton Energy Servs., 145 S. Ct. 690, 694 (2025). Civil case terminated.

MAILED copyright report with order dated 6/24/2025 to Registrar, Washington DC