Approximately 80% of Schedule A Defendant (“SAD”) counterfeiting suits are brought in the Northern District of Illinois. The name refers to the captioned name of the defendants – usually “The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A.”
SAD litigations have been a topic of controversy in recent years. Plaintiffs may make aggressive assertions as to service of process, joinder, and the use of urgent relief regarding freezing defendants’ assets – which claims often go unchallenged in default scenarios. This creates an opportunity for a plaintiff to freeze and seize a lot of ill-gotten gains in one lawsuit. The Northern District of Illinois had, until recently at least, been accommodating to these suits – giving rise to the meme: The Northern District of Illinois vs. The Internet.
Over the past few weeks a judge in the ND Ill, Judge John Kness, has issued an order staying all of his pending SAD suits ( 14 to my count). The Judge will “reassess” his view on these suits (however it is unclear to what extent the Judge will conduct any sort of fact-finding or briefing in this regard).
The order(which appears to be identical in all 14 suits) provides a handy bullet point list spot-lighting the procedural questions raised by these suits:
“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.” (emphasis and formatting added)
The following SAD cases on Judge Kness’ docket appear to be stayed at this time:
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. The Partnerships And Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A, N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-06252
Universal City Studios LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-05473
Garyck Truls Arntzen v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-05397
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-05874
Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited v. yifang N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-03183
GJL Holding Company LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04726
Jessica Rose Hanselmann v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04639
Judge Kness entered a stay, and plaintiffs withdrew their litigation without prejudice in:
Fendi S.R.L. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A et al N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04859
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liabiltiy (sic) Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-01797
Spin Master Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-03605
Spin Master Ltd. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-03442
Pit Viper, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04516
Christian Dior Couture, S.A. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04096
Nike, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A N.D.Ill. 1:25-cv-04318
Prior press coverage on the growing resistance to SAD litgation reported here.