PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 3/22/2024. Mailed notice.

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 3/22/2024. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment (Dckt. No. 42) is hereby granted. The answer to the complaint is long since overdue. Final Judgment Order to follow. Permanent Injunction Order to follow. The case is closed. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 43

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:(Exhibit 3)

MEMORANDUM by Chrome Hearts LLC in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment 42

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for default judgment as to Defendant duoliandianzi-4

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)

STATUS Report Pursuant to 37 by Chrome Hearts LLC

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Chrome Hearts LLC as to duoliandianzi-4 on 1/17/2024, answer due 2/7/2024.

附件：

1:Declaration of Trevor C. Talhami
2:Exhibit A

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant duoliandianzi-4

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 Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Steven C. Seeger on 12/14/2023. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. [14]) is hereby denied. Plaintiff withdrew the motion. (Dckt. No. [29]) Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery (Dckt. No. [31]) is hereby granted. The Court is authorizing discovery so that Plaintiff can learn Defendant's identity. Plaintiff must file a status report by January 18, 2024. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal (Dckt. No. 3) is hereby denied. Plaintiff asks this Court for leave to file under seal the list of Defendants identified in the so-called Schedule A to the complaint (which lists the online seller names and their URLs). Plaintiff also asks this Court to seal related material supporting the request for a temporary restraining order. There is a strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. "Secrecy in judicial proceedings. is disfavored." Mueller v. Raemisch, 740 F.3d 1128, 1135 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mitze v. Saul, 968 F.3d 689, 692 (7th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (noting that "a strong presumption exists in favor of publishing dispositional orders"); Duff v. Cent. Sleep Diagnostics, LLC, 801 F.3d 833, 844 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that "secrecy in judicial proceedings is generally disfavored"). "Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies confidentiality." In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010). Documents that "influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term confidentiality." Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567 (7th Cir. 2000) ("Even disputes about claims of national security are litigated in the open."). A party who wants to depart from that longstanding tradition, and litigate in secret, must carry a heavy burden. Plaintiff does not come close to doing so here. Plaintiff's explanation for the request for secrecy is rather terse. "Sealing this portion of the file is necessary to prevent the Defendants from learning of these proceedings prior to the execution of the temporary restraining order. If Defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions, which would frustrate the purpose of the underlying law and would interfere with this Court's power to grant relief." See Mtn. to Seal (Dckt. No. 3) That's the same cut-and-paste boilerplate offered in countless Schedule A cases, often word for word. Plaintiff gives no concrete reason to think that Defendants would destroy documents in this particular case. As a practical matter, Defendants typically don't produce documents in Schedule A cases anyway, because almost all of them fail to participate in the suit and eventually get tagged with a default judgment. The simple reality is that defendants in Schedule A cases tend to be foreign sellers who do not produce documents at all, so sealing a case to protect documents is likely to be a moot point. Also, the possibility of document destruction is not much of a basis for sealing documents in the short term, because Plaintiff apparently plans to move to unseal the documents after serving the TRO. The possibility of transferring assets offshore isn't much of a reason to proceed in secret in a Schedule A case, either. Filing an ex parte motion for a TRO, under seal, does make sense in certain types of cases. For example, the SEC often seeks a TRO to lock down assets that do not rightfully belong to the defendants (e.g., by suing a fraudster who holds investors' money). In those cases, the SEC often files a motion for a TRO under seal, and rightly so. Making the request under seal makes sense in those cases, because the alleged fraudster could dissipate the investors' assets if the fraudster learns about the lawsuit. Locking down the assets, without giving the fraudster a heads-up, helps to protect investors and preserve the possibility of obtaining meaningful equitable relief at the end of the case. A motion to seal often makes sense when the plaintiff seeks an asset freeze to secure the potential recovery of future equitable relief. Secrecy is sometimes necessary to preserve the possibility of obtaining equitable relief at the end of the case. But in Schedule A cases, the plaintiffs' bar typically seeks remedies at law, such as statutory damages, not equitable monetary relief. The request for a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, affects the calculus when it comes to an asset freeze. 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. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In Grupo Mexicano, the Supreme Court held that a district court has "no authority to issue a preliminary injunction preventing [a defendant] from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of [plaintiff's] contract claim for money damages." Id. at 333. The Supreme Court adhered to the long-standing rule that "a judgment establishing the debt was necessary before a court of equity would interfere with the debtor's use of his property." Id. at 321. "[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." See Banister v. Firestone, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. 2018). An equitable restraint at the outset of the case might be doable if a plaintiff requested and received equitable monetary relief at the end of the day, like an accounting of profits. See Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 2013 WL 12314399 (N.D. Ill. 2013). But as a practical matter, in Schedule A cases, that recovery almost never happens. Schedule A plaintiffs typically don't request and receive equitable relief. Instead, Schedule A plaintiffs rush into court, request and receive an asset freeze, obtain a default judgment, and then ask district courts to unfreeze the money and award statutory damages, not equitable relief. In that scenario, it is not clear to this Court that it would be appropriate to use any frozen funds for any recovery of statutory damages, because statutory damages are a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity. Truth be told, the Schedule A plaintiffs' bar asks district courts in this district to lock down assets through an asset freeze on day one of a case, and do so under seal. And then, at the end of the case, Schedule A plaintiffs receive a remedy at law, not a remedy in equity, which means that there was no justification for an asset freeze in the first place. Putting it all together, this Court might entertain a request to file under seal if Plaintiff were seeking an asset freeze that this Court could grant, meaning an asset freeze for the limited purpose of allowing equitable relief down the road. But in the case at hand, Plaintiff has not made a showing that it will seek equitable monetary relief at the end of the case, so there is no basis for an asset freeze now. And if there is no basis for an asset freeze now, then there is no reason to proceed under seal now. If you can't freeze it, you can't seal it. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 32) is hereby granted. Plaintiff's prior motion for electronic service of process (Dckt. No. 19) is denied as moot. Mailed notice.

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 33

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:(Exhibit 2)

MEMORANDUM by Chrome Hearts LLC in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 32

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for discovery Expedited

AMENDED complaint by Chrome Hearts LLC against duoliandianzi-4 and terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit 4
5:(Exhibit 5)

Withdrawal of Requests for Temporary Injunction, Electronic Service, and to Join Defendants by Chrome Hearts LLC

MEMORANDUM by Chrome Hearts LLC Establishing that Joinder is Proper

附件：

1:Declaration of Justin R. Gaudio
2:Exhibit 1
3:Exhibit 2
4:Exhibit 3
5:Exhibit 4
6:Exhibit 5
7:Exhibit 6
8:Exhibit 7
9:(Exhibit 8)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: By September 1, 2023, Plaintiff must show cause why every defendant except one should not be dismissed for improper joinder. Mailed notice

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The deadline to file an initial status report is extended to October 6, 2023. Mailed notice.

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Chrome Hearts LLC as to certain defendant

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The deadline to file an initial status report is extended to August 4, 2023.Mailed notice.

STATEMENT by Chrome Hearts LLC regarding 22

附件：

1:(Exhibit 1)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Last year, this Court directed Plaintiffs' counsel to prepare, file, and email an Excel spreadsheet of all Schedule A cases that Plaintiffs' counsel had filed in this district in 2020 and 2021. The Court directs Plaintiffs' counsel to prepare, file, and email an updated version of the spreadsheet by May 19, 2023. The spreadsheet must include columns showing the case number, the case name, the date of filing each case, and the assigned judge. Counsel must file the spreadsheet on the docket, and must email an Excel version to the proposed order inbox: proposed_order_seeger@ilnd.uscourts.gov. The cover page of the filing must reveal how many Schedule A cases Plaintiffs' counsel filed in this district in 2022, and from 2020 to 2022. Mailed notice

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 20

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:(Exhibit 2)

MEMORANDUM by Chrome Hearts LLC in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 19

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC Exhibit 5 - Parts 1 - 6 regarding declaration 17

附件：

1:Exhibit 5-1
2:Exhibit 5-2
3:Exhibit 5-3
4:Exhibit 5-4
5:Exhibit 5-5
6:(Exhibit 5-6)

DECLARATION of Mario Lejtman regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:(Exhibit 4)

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 15

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:(Exhibit 4)

MEMORANDUM by Chrome Hearts LLC in support of motion for temporary restraining order 14

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Transfer of the Defendant Domain Names, a Temporary Asset Restraint, and Expedited Discovery

MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials

MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by June 8, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice.

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.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC by Trevor Christian Talhami

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC by Rachel S Miller

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC by Justin R. Gaudio

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Chrome Hearts LLC

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Chrome Hearts LLC

CIVIL Cover Sheet

MOTION by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC for leave to file under seal

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Chrome Hearts LLC Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

COMPLAINT filed by Chrome Hearts LLC; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20423158.

附件：

1:Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit 2
3:Exhibit 3
4:Exhibit 4
5:Exhibit 5