2025-cv-10916

COMPLAINT filed by GT LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24043494.

Schedule A

Ex.1

Ex.2

Ex.3

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff GT LLC by James Edward Judge

MOTION by Plaintiff GT LLC for leave to file documents under seal

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 3). (Text entry; no document attached.)

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. (Text entry; no document attached.)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff GT LLC Unredacted Complaint

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins:The motion to seal [4] is denied. The clerk is directed to unseal docket entry [5]. The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that Plaintiff is GuzzleTech LLC. No-name litigation is disfavored in general, and the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly voiced disfavor of parties proceeding anonymously, as anonymous litigation runs contrary to the rights of the public to have open judicial proceedings. Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining nearly 200 defendants in a single action. Even if Rule 20 permits such a joinder, joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 110204 (7th Cir. 2022); 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."). Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by September 17, 2025. 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.

MAILED copyright report to Registrar, Washington DC

NEW PARTIES: POWIOS added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A (Text entry; no document attached.)

AMENDED complaint by GuzzleTech LLC against POWIOS