2025-cv-05397

COMPLAINT filed by Garyck Truls Arntzen; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23490068.

(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 Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

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

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John F. Kness. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. 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.

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.

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

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

Exhibit 1-9

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

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

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Kness: Plaintiff is directed to Docket Entry 11 which notes that all pending motions in this case are held in abeyance. Mailed notice.