2025-cv-07734

COMPLAINT filed by Anderson Design Group, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23726408.

(Exhibit 1)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. Schedule A to Complaint 1

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Keith A. Vogt

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Yanling Jiang

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Adam Grodman

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Cameron Eugene Mcintyre

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Monica Rita Martin

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Yi Bu

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Anderson Design Group, Inc. by Christopher Romero

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. 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 John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 197 separate defendants in this single copyright infringement suit, see 1, 2, lumping all defendants together and alleging infringement of 8 separate copyrighted photographs. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single copyright infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff's alleges that the "Defendant Internet Stores share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendant's illegal operations arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 7. But the allegation remains conclusory and unsupported in the record. The Court thus dismisses the complaint 1 for improper joinder. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to support the joinder of the identified defendants in this single action, it may do so by 8/15/25. If Plaintiff elects to amend, it should also examine its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice.

Amended Complaint 1 and Schedule A 2 AMENDED complaint by Anderson Design Group, Inc. against The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

(Exhibit 1)

Amended Schedule A to Complaint 1, Schedule A 2 and Amended Complaint 13 by Anderson Design Group, Inc.

Amended Schedule A to the Complaint 1 and Schedule A 2 by Anderson Design Group, Inc.

MEMORANDUM in support of 16 Exparte motion

Exhibit 1

Declaration of Keith A. Vogt

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

Presentment for Exparte motion 16 and NOTICE of Motion by Keith A. Vogt for presentment of before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 8/20/2025 at 11:00 AM.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint naming just one Defendant and has thus avoided any joinder issues. Plaintiff may proceed on its amended complaint [13], and the Court strikes docket entry [14], which appears to be the same amended Schedule A filed in docket entry [15]. Plaintiff shall add the Defendant to the docket. Additionally, based upon Plaintiff's submissions, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery and for electronic service of process [16] and strikes the 8/20/25 Notice of Motion date. Enter Order. Mailed notice.

ORDER For Leave to Conduct Expedited Discovery and Service of Process by E-mail and/or Electronic Publication. Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 8/19/2025. Mailed notice.