2025-cv-04162

COMPLAINT filed by Bang Bang Merchandise LLP; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23358405.

(Exhibit A)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Bang Bang Merchandise LLP Schedule A to Complaint regarding complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bang Bang Merchandise LLP by Karolina Jozwiak

MOTION by Plaintiff Bang Bang Merchandise LLP for leave to file Certain Documents Under Seal

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Bang Bang Merchandise LLP by Sofia Quezada Hastings (Quezada Hastings, Sofia)

EMAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).

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.

EMAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 111 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024). Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder on or before May 2, 2025. Alternatively, by the same date, the plaintiff may file an amended complaint naming one or more defendants; however, if the plaintiff names multiple defendants, the plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. All pending motions are hereby stayed pending resolution of the joinder issue. Mailed notice.

MEMORANDUM by Bang Bang Merchandise LLP on the Propriety of Joinder

Declaration of Sofia Quezada Hastings

Exhibit 1

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

(Exhibit E)(Quezada Hastings, Sofia)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: This case is dismissed without prejudice for misjoinder. The plaintiff contends that joinder is proper because there is a logical relationship between the defendants. (R. 10 at 3.) That logical relationship stems from alleged similarities amongst the defendants, to include each defendant infringing the plaintiff's mark, selling counterfeit versions of the plaintiff's product, and setting up online stores to sell the counterfeits under a cloak of anonymity. (Id.) It is worth noting that the "logical relationship" test has been used to determined whether claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence. In re Price, 42 F.3d 1068, 1073 (7th Cir. 1994). It is designed to determine whether claims have a common origin. See id. ("Applying the logical relationship test, we find the relationship between the Prices' claim and the IRS' notice of intent to levy is derived from the same transaction or occurrence."). Here, the plaintiff seeks to join 111 defendants who operate in a similar manner. The Court is not persuaded that the allegations establish that joinder is proper. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 9401, Dkt. 27 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024). The plaintiff has until May 9, 2025, to file an amended complaint. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeremy C. Daniel: The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Therefore, civil case terminated. The Court reminds the plaintiff that Local Rule 40.3(b)(2) states that, "When a case is dismissed with prejudice or without, and a second case is filed involving the same parties and relating to the same subject matter, the second case shall be assigned to the judge to whom the first case was assigned. The designation sheet presented at the time the second case is filed shall indicate the number of the earlier case and the name of the judge to whom it was assigned." Mailed notice.

ENTERED JUDGMENT. Mailed notice.

EMAILED Trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 05/16/25 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA