2025-cv-14742

COMPLAINT filed by Irene Winona; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24431632.

(Exhibit Exhibit 1)

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Irene Winona Schedule A to Complaint

CIVIL Cover Sheet

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Irene Winona by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr

MOTION by Plaintiff Irene Winona to seal document sealed document 2

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable April M. Perry. 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 April M. Perry: Plaintiff's motion to file under seal 5 is granted. It appearing that the case filed is a "Schedule A" case, Plaintiff is directed to the Court's standing order on its website directing the filing of the Court's Schedule A Template within 14 days. Furthermore, upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) of joining 65 defendants to this action. See, e.g, Estee Lauder Cosmetics Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Plaintiff is reminded that "[c]ourts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." See Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps, Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Plaintiff should also reference this Court's opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), where the Court expressed its views on joinder in Schedule A cases. By 12/24/2025, Plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder in light of the principles described above and explaining why each defendant is properly joined to every other. In the alternative, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by 12/24/2025 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why each defendant is properly joined to all of the others. Mailed notice. (jcc,)

MOTION by Plaintiff Irene Winona for extension of time to file Memorandum in Support of Joinder

MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Motion for extension of time 8 is granted. Plaintiff's deadline to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder is extended to 1/7/2026. Mailed notice. (jcc,)

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice.

ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice.

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Irene Winona Amended Schedule A

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Irene Winona Schedule A Template

SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Irene Winona Memorandum in Support of Joinder.

Supplement Declaration of David Gulbransen

Exhibit Exhibit 1

Exhibit Exhibit 2

Exhibit Exhibit 3

Exhibit Exhibit 4

Exhibit Exhibit 5

Exhibit Exhibit 6

(Exhibit Exhibit 7) (Attachment 2 replaced on 1/13/2026)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable April M. Perry: Plaintiff filed its copyright registrations under seal, which are matters of public record and should not be sealed. Doc. 14-2. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to unseal [14-2]. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion in support of joinder 14 and finds that Plaintiff has not adequately established joinder of all 27 defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2). Under Rule 20(a)(2), joinder of multiple defendants is proper if two requirements are satisfied: (1) the claims are "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and (2) there is a "question of law or fact common to all defendants." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)(B). In assessing Plaintiff's arguments in support of joinder, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true but does not credit speculation or conclusory allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 797 (7th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff at this stage does "not need to allege facts that definitively establish a link among the defendants; [it] need only allege facts that plausibly establish such a connection." Bug Art v. Schedule A Defs., No. 24-cv-07777, Doc. 28 at 5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2024). Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing any plausible connection between all of the defendants in this case. As an initial matter, this Court notes factual inconsistencies between the complaint and in the memorandum in support of joinder. Contrast Doc. 1 paragraph 5 (characterizing Plaintiff as "a professional artist from California [whose] work incorporates painting and graphics with practical applications, such as hair clips, to create compelling works of art.") with Doc. 14 at 2 (characterizing Plaintiff as "a professional artist from Alabama [whose] work incorporates wood carving and fantasy elements to create compelling, practical works of art including the images at the center of this suit."). These types of errors make it difficult to credit counsel's arguments, many of which are unsupported by any citation to either facts or law. Moreover, the Court specifically directed Plaintiff to consider the reasoning from its prior opinion in Zaful v. Schedule A Defs., 24-cv-11111, Doc. 12 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2025), see Doc. 7, but Plaintiff's memorandum instead relies entirely on the swarm theory from Bose Corp. v. Schedule A Defs., 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2020) which this Court explicitly rejected in Zaful. Specifically, Plaintiff claims there is some type of "swarm" relationship between all 27 defendants leading to a game of "whack-a-mole," specifically because they "all occupy the same geographic area" and conduct "coordinated [communication] through multiple sites." Doc. 14 at 11. Plaintiff also argues that there is "potential common ownership of accounts," "similar methodology in operation," "similar channels of securing counterfeit goods," and infringement of the same works. Doc. 14 at 7. This Court incorporates reasoning from Zaful in finding joinder improper. First, plaintiff is trying to protect nine different copyrighted designs, and each defendant appears to sell a different array of items. Doc. 14-2; Doc. 14-3; Doc. 14-4. Multiple defendants targeting multiple copyrights shows the defendants are copycats, not co-conspirators. Zaful, 2025 WL 71797, at *4 ("And, to the extent they were copying their 'competition,' how does this demonstrate 'coordination' among them?"). Second, each defendant does not occupy the same geographic area as Plaintiff suggests perhaps eight defendants are located in the proximity of a factory in Guangzhou, but Plaintiff has made no case that all defendants are located in this region. Doc. 13. The Court also cannot accept that the "Guangzhou Tangshan Trading Import and Export Co." factory is an origin point for all of these allegedly infringing claw clips, as Plaintiff has only asserted that the factory produces 50% of the hair claw market for North America and fails to allege that this factory produced Plaintiff's designs. Doc. 14-1 paragraph 10; Doc. 14-7. Third, using the same anonymity mechanisms common to all infringers including the use of chat rooms is not evidence of coordination. Zaful, 2025 WL 71797, at *5 ("All of these facts support a finding of someone willfully violating the law who does not want to be caught, but none support a finding of coordination amongst the offenders. If the defendants had similar corporate names, email addresses, or matching fake (or real) addresses, then Plaintiff would have a point that is not the case here."). Fourth, despite Plaintiff's claims that it "has presented evidence of communication coordinated through multiple sites," Doc. 14 at 11, what Plaintiff's citation presented evidence of is websites available for counterfeiters to use to communicate - there is no evidence any of these defendants used such websites, let alone to communicate with each other. Lastly, judicial economy is not served by granting joinder of these 27 defendants. Plaintiff's memorandum in support of joinder does not contain the defendant-by-defendant analysis the Court requested or, indeed, have any defendant-specific references at all. See Doc. 7 (instructing plaintiff to explain "why each defendant is properly joined to all of the other defendants"). Plaintiff apparently expects the Court to comb through the 140 pages of unlabeled screenshots it has attached as exhibits, without anywhere in its memorandum analyzing or citing to examples in those screenshots to explain why each defendant should be joined to the other defendants. Doc. 14-3; Doc. 14-4. Plaintiff's expectation that the Court will do its work for it is precisely the reason that joinder does not promote judicial economy. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint against one defendant by 1/21/2026, or the entire case will be dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice. (jcc,)