Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
最近更新时间：2025-07-22
案件信息
案件号：ilnd-1:2025-cv-06290
状态：open
提交时间：2025-07-16 00:00:00
诉讼类型：版权
律所：Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
原告：Hong Kong Leyuzhen Technology Co. Limited v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule A
| # | 日期 | 案件进程 |
| 1 | 2025-07-16 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 7/1/2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, which named [22] defendants, for misjoinder [15]. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming 6 defendants, along with a memorandum of law explaining why joinder is proper [16], [17]. In support of joinder, Plaintiff emphasizes that "[e]ach defendant specifically selected and copied Plaintiff's collection of copyright protected pantsuit photographsnot random images, but a curated fashion collection creatively conceived by Rotita" and that through test purchase, "Plaintiff has found that a majority of Defendants are using the same materials and color pigments for their Infringing Products which all share the same dimensions." R. [17] at 5, 8. However, this argument was considered and rejected in the Court's original Order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. See R. [15] at [3] ("While Plaintiff points out that some Defendants' product descriptions use the same or similar wording and/or the same pictures, or that Defendants' use the same manufacturing source, that does not establish that Defendants are the same or are working together.") (citing Bailie v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations, 2024 WL 2209698 at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2024) ("[E]ven if defendants' webpages were all identical, joinder is improper because use of identical web pages would not overcome the likelihood that Defendants are just copycats, both of the [plaintiff's] style and of each other.") (cleaned up)). And although Plaintiff argues that it will be more economical for the Court to allow joinder here, the Court cannot circumvent the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 for its own convenience. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice for misjoinder. Plaintiff has fourteen days from the date of this Order to file a second amended complaint naming one defendant. If Plaintiff's second amended complaint names more than one defendant, Plaintiff must submit a memorandum along with sufficient documentary evidence in support of joinder under Rule 20. Mailed notice. |
