2025-cv-05938

COMPLAINT filed by Revelyst Operations LLC ; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23543261.

Exhibit 1 - TM Registrations

Exhibit 2 - CBP

Exhibit 3 - IP Rights

(Exhibit 4 - DHS)

CIVIL Cover Sheet

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC - Schedule A to Complaint - regarding complaint, 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC to seal document exhibit 3

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Revelyst Operations LLC

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC by Matthew A. Werber

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Heather K. McShain. 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.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC by Peter Krusiewicz

MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA.

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials.

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE

Declaration of Matthew Werber

Exhibit A - to the Declaration of Matt Werber

Exhibit B - to the Declaration of Matt Werber

(Unpublished)

MEMORANDUM by Revelyst Operations LLC -- MEMORANDUM ON JOINDER --

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 4, is denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. Id. at 1-2. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, 4, is therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibit, 3, is stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file an unredacted version of its complaint publicly on the docket by 6/17/2025.

EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC - Schedule A to the Complaint - regarding complaint, 1, order on motion to seal document, text entry, 12

STATUS Report by Revelyst Operations LLC

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: The court has received plaintiff's memorandum regarding joinder. 11. Having considered the memorandum and plaintiff's other filings in this case, the court finds that joinder of the defendants identified in plaintiff's Schedule A, 13, is improper. Rule 20 allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in an action where (1) "any right to relief is asserted against [the defendants] jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and (2) "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Here, plaintiff's arguments in support of joinder are unpersuasive for the reasons stated in Hong Kong Leyuzhen Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4947, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill. June 3, 2025) and CAO Grp., Inc. v. Schedule A, No. 25-cv-4054, Dkt. 21 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2025). To cure this deficiency, plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint narrowing the claims down to a subset of defendants that are properly joined. If the amended complaint names multiple defendants, plaintiff must also file a supplemental memorandum establishing that these defendants are properly joined. Plaintiff's amended complaint and supplemental memorandum are due by 8/8/2025. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint or the court finds that joinder of the defendants named in plaintiff's amended complaint is improper, the court will dismiss all improperly joined defendants without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 10, is denied as moot without prejudice to re-filing once plaintiff files an amended complaint.

AMENDED complaint by Revelyst Operations LLC against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto

Exhibit 1 - TM Registrations

Exhibit 2 - CBP

Exhibit 3 - IP Rights

Exhibit 4 - DHS

(Amended Schedule A)

MOTION by Plaintiff Revelyst Operations LLC -- Renewed Motion for Expedited Discovery and Electronic Service --

Werber Decl

Ex. A - Amazon Page

Ex. B - Hague

Ex. C- eBay Page

(Unpublished)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and for electronic service of process, 17, is granted in part. Enter order.

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 8/11/2025:

SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Revelyst Operations LLC as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A Hereto on 8/22/2025, answer due 9/12/2025.

(Executed Summons - Served August 22, 2025)