Legend Pictures, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Plaintiff: Legend Pictures, LLC
Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Case Number: 1:2022cv03785
Filed: July 21, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Steven C Seeger
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 19, 2022 Filing 18 STATEMENT by Legend Pictures, LLC Regarding Asset Freeze (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Vogt, Keith)
August 9, 2022 Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed Plaintiff's motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. 11 ). The proposed minute order includes a request for an asset freeze. By August 19, 2022, Plaintiff must file a statement and point to the statutory provision that gives this Court the power to impose an asset freeze at the outset of the case. If Plaintiff cannot point to a specific statutory provision, then Plaintiff must address how its request for an asset freeze is consistent with Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999). In its memo, Plaintiff argues that "[c]ourts have the inherent authority to issue a prejudgment asset restraint when plaintiff's complaint seeks relief in equity." See Mem., at 12. 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. "However, the [Grupo] [C]ourt specifically noted that a restraint on assets was still proper if a suit sought equitable relief." See CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Redisi, 309 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Grupo, 527 U.S. at 333; Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 288 (1940)). "[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 Plaintiff obtained 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, if at all. Instead, plaintiffs rush into court, seek and obtain 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. If Plaintiff believes that it is appropriate for this Court to freeze funds at the outset of the case, and then use those funds to recover statutory damages (not equitable monetary relief) at the end of the case, then Plaintiff must explain why. Mailed notice (jjr, )
July 25, 2022 Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by October 10, 2022. 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. (jjr, )
July 22, 2022 Filing 15 MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials (jmk, )
July 22, 2022 Filing 14 MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA (jmk, )
July 21, 2022 Filing 13 SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC Sealed Exhibit 3, Declaration of Kristina Holliman regarding memorandum in support of motion, #12 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 3, Part 1, #2 Exhibit 3, Part 2, #3 Exhibit 3, Part 3, #4 Exhibit 3, Part 4, #5 Exhibit 3, Part 5)(Jiang, Yanling)
July 21, 2022 Filing 12 MEMORANDUM In Support of 11 Ex Parte Motion (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Keith A. Vogt, #2 Exhibit 1-4, Declaration of Keith Vogt, #3 Declaration of Kristina Holliman, #4 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Kristina Holliman, #5 Exhibit 2, Declaration of Kristina Holliman)(Jiang, Yanling)
July 21, 2022 Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC for leave to file excess pages (Jiang, Yanling)
July 21, 2022 Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC for leave to file [Certain] Documents Under Seal (Jiang, Yanling)
July 21, 2022 Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC by Yi Bu (Bu, Yi)
July 21, 2022 Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC by Yanling Jiang (Jiang, Yanling)
July 21, 2022 Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC by Adam Grodman (Grodman, Adam)
July 21, 2022 Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC by Keith A. Vogt (Vogt, Keith)
July 21, 2022 Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Legend Pictures, LLC (Vogt, Keith)
July 21, 2022 Filing 3 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Vogt, Keith)
July 21, 2022 Filing 2 SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Legend Pictures, LLC Schedule A to Complaint #1 (Vogt, Keith)
July 21, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Legend Pictures, LLC; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-19671095. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5)(Vogt, Keith)
July 21, 2022 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. (jxj, )
July 21, 2022 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable David Weisman. Case assignment: Direct assignment. (jxj, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Legend Pictures, LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Legend Pictures, LLC
Represented By: Adam Grodman
Represented By: Yanling Jiang
Represented By: Yi Bu
Represented By: Keith A. Vogt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?