2025-cv-05390

COMPLAINT filed by Garyck Truls Arntzen; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23489617.

(Exhibit 1)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen Schedule A to Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Christopher Romero

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Garyck Truls Arntzen by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. 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.

MAILED Copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining nearly 200 defendants in a single action. By May 23, 2025, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by May 23, 2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice.

MEMORANDUM in Support of 13 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

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

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

MEMORANDUM set deadlines, 12 by Garyck Truls Arntzen Supplemental Memorandum in Response to Minute Order 12

(Exhibit 1)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's memorandum on joinder [Dkt. 15] and determines, within its discretion, that it has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of nearly 200 defendants is proper in this matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). See Este Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. The Partnerships, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the Court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Here, Plaintiff surmises that identical and substantially similar infringing clothing suggests coordinated action [Dkt. 15 at 2-3] But overall, the arguments fall short of establishing a logical relationship among the defendants. At bottom, Plaintiff simply asserts that all of them participated in the same mass infringement of the same set of designs on clothing. Tang v. Sch. A Defs., 2024 WL 68332, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 4, 2024) (rejecting similar arguments). The Court is not persuaded that any one defendant's infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Even if the Court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, the Court exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Este Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (rejecting joinder of 216 defendants, noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [the plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense.") Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint consistent with this order along with an amended Schedule A by no later than June 3, 2025. Mailed notice.

AMENDED complaint by Garyck Truls Arntzen against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: In light of the amended complaint, the motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery 19 is granted. The prior motion 13 is denied as moot. Separate order to issue. Mailed notice.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 6/4/2025. Mailed notice.

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant Wisgofre US Direct

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Garyck Truls Arntzen as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 6/12/2025, answer due 7/3/2025.

(Declaration of Service, Keith A. Vogt)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: By July 8, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a status report regarding next steps in this case. If Plaintiff intends to file a motion for default judgment, it should be filed by that date, and if Plaintiff moves for default judgment as to all Defendants, no status report need be filed. Mailed notice.