MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/14/25, the court ordered defendant Pengli to answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 5/2/25 47. Defendant Pengli did not do so. By 5/14/25, defendant Pengli must answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint. Mailed notice.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Defendant Pengli's unopposed motion for extension of time, [46], is granted. Defendant Pengli must answer or otherwise plead to plaintiff's complaint by 5/2/2025. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, [39], remains under advisement.

MOTION by Defendant Pengli for extension of time UNOPPOSED

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Pengli by Adam Edward Urbanczyk

STATUS Report Pursuant to 38 by Mob Entertainment, Inc.

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)

CERTIFICATE of Service by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. regarding set motion and R&R deadlines/hearings, 42

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Any defendant objecting to plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, 39, must enter an appearance and file a written objection by 4/11/2025. If no objections are filed, the court will consider the motion unopposed. Plaintiff shall serve defendants with this notice.

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion[40]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1

MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for entry of default, motion for default judgment[39]

附件：

1:Exhibit 1

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for entry of default, MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for default judgment as to all Defendants

附件：

1:Exhibit A

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/8/2025, plaintiff should file a status report with an update on the status of the case.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal, 35, defendant Nos. 58 (A good home store) and 59 (Marvel Charm) are terminated.

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mob Entertainment, Inc. as to The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A on 3/10/2025, answer due 3/31/2025.

附件：

1:(Exhibit A)
2:Declaration of Jennifer V. Nacht

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Mob Entertainment, Inc. as to certain Defendants

SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A

SUMMONS Submitted (Court Participant) for defendant(s) The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc.

ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 2/11/2025:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 28, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion to unseal certain documents, 29, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the Schedule A to the Complaint 2 and Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Zach Belanger 17.

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. to unseal document exhibit 2, exhibit 17

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for discovery Expedited

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to comply with order, 25, is granted. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 2/7/2025.

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 24, is denied. "While motions to reconsider are permitted. they are disfavored." Patrick v. City of Chicago, 103 F. Supp. 3d 907, 911 (N.D. Ill. 2015). "This is a heavy burden for the moving party and makes a motion for reconsideration an inappropriate medium to 'rehash' past arguments[.]" Alice F. v. Health Care Serv. Corp., No. 17-cv-3710, 2019 WL 11626480, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2019) (citation omitted). "Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not submitted any newly discovered evidence. Thus, plaintiff can prevail only if it demonstrates that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. "A manifest error of law or fact under this standard occurs when a district court 'has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'" Patrick, 103 F. Supp. 3d at 912 (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Plaintiff has not shown that the court made a manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff points out that the court has the power to issue an asset restraint when a plaintiff seeks an accounting and profits in the alternative to statutory damages in its complaint. See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (asset freeze was "appropriate" when plaintiff sought statutory damages or equitable relief in the alternative). But simply because a court has the authority to issue an asset freeze in such circumstances does not mean that the plaintiff here is entitled to one. As explained in the prior minute entry, 22, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff intends to actually seek or obtain equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, 24, is denied.

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for extension of time to Comply with Order 22

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for reconsideration regarding order on motion for leave to file, order on motion for temporary restraining order, text entry, 22

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, [18], is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. [22].

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, [3], and for a temporary restraining order, temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery, [13], are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See [3]. "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." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[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." Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *3-4. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, [3], and for a temporary restraining order, [13], are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, [2], [17], are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 1/31/2025.

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Trevor Christian Talhami

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 19

附件：

1:(Exhibit 2)
2:Exhibit 1

MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for miscellaneous relief 18

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for Electronic Service of Process Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. Exhibit 4 Parts 1-2 regarding declaration 16

附件：

1:(Exhibit 4-2)
2:Exhibit 4-1

DECLARATION of Zach Belanger regarding memorandum in support of motion 14

附件：

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

DECLARATION of Justin R. Gaudio regarding memorandum in support of motion 14

附件：

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

MEMORANDUM by Mob Entertainment, Inc. in support of motion for temporary restraining order 13

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for temporary restraining order including a Temporary Injunction, 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.

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (qrtr,)

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Jennifer Van Nacht

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Quinn Bradley Guillermo

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Amy Crout Ziegler

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. by Justin R. Gaudio

Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Mob Entertainment, Inc.

NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Mob Entertainment, Inc.

CIVIL Cover Sheet

MOTION by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. for leave to file under seal

SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Mob Entertainment, Inc. Schedule A regarding complaint[1]

COMPLAINT filed by Mob Entertainment, Inc.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-22476568.

附件：

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