Nailia41

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsN.D. Illinois

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/20/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	FULL SATISFACTION of Judgment regarding order 233 as to Certain Defendant (Judge, James) (Entered: 11/20/2023)
10/19/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Reopen the Case and Amend Default Judgment Order" to reflect that defendant nos. 249, 250, 251, 257, and 269 were dismissed voluntarily before the default judgment was entered (see doc. no. 95 ). The court has identified the following additional defendants which were dismissed voluntarily but included in the default judgment order: defendant nos. 7, 36, 37, 42, 45, and 222. See doc. nos. 228, 230 . Defendant nos. 7, 36, 37, 42, 45, 222, 249, 250, 251, 257, and 269 are stricken sua sponte from schedule A to the default judgment 233 . Plaintiff also moves to reopen based on the representation that it has not concluded settlement negotiations with "several defendants." Plaintiff does not specify which defendants, but plaintiff separately filed a motion 235 to enter a consent judgment against defendant no. 268. When the court previously entered the default judgment requested by plaintiff 233, it closed this case, relying on plaintiff's representation in its motion for entry of default judgment (see doc. no. [212-1] at 1) that it was requesting entry of a "final judgment," which means a judgment disposing of all claims and all parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), 58. Future motions must state clearly when a judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties is requested. If plaintiff has not resolved its claims against all defendants, the default judgment must be set aside in its entirety unless the court finds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that there is no just reason for delaying entry of a partial judgment. See Arwa Chiropractic, P.C. v. Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, Inc., 961 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2020). For the same reason, the court cannot enter a partial judgment against defendant no. 268 (as to which plaintiff has requested entry of a consent judgment) without making the findings required by Rule 54(b). Because no Rule 54(b) finding has been requested, plaintiff's motion 235 for entry of a consent judgment against defendant no. 268 is denied without prejudice. Further, because setting aside the default judgment in its entirety (which plaintiff suggests it wants in order to continue settlement negotiations) would be likely to disrupt any ongoing efforts to collect it, the court declines to vacate the default judgment on its own motion. Plaintiff may file an amended motion to reopen or a motion for a Rule 54(b) finding, making clear what relief it is requesting and what Federal Rules of Civil Procedure support that relief. For the reasons stated above, the court strikes the above-listed defendants from the default judgment. The motion for a consent judgment against defendant no. 268 is denied without prejudice. The motion to reopen the case is denied without prejudice since plaintiff has not made clear whether it wishes to set aside the default judgment in its entirety or wishes to move for a Rule 54(b) finding. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/19/2023) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Reopen the Case and Amend Default Judgment Order" to reflect that defendant nos. 249, 250, 251, 257, and 269 were dismissed voluntarily before the default judgment was entered (see doc. no. 95 ). The court has identified the following additional defendants which were dismissed voluntarily but included in the default judgment order: defendant nos. 7, 36, 37, 42, 45, and 222. See doc. nos. 228, 230 . Defendant nos. 7, 36, 37, 42, 45, 222, 249, 250, 251, 257, and 269 are stricken sua sponte from schedule A to the default judgment 233 . Plaintiff also moves to reopen based on the representation that it has not concluded settlement negotiations with "several defendants." Plaintiff does not specify which defendants, but plaintiff separately filed a motion 235 to enter a consent judgment against defendant no. 268. When the court previously entered the default judgment requested by plaintiff 233, it closed this case, relying on plaintiff's representation in its motion for entry of default judgment (see doc. no. [212-1] at 1) that it was requesting entry of a "final judgment," which means a judgment disposing of all claims and all parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), 58. Future motions must state clearly when a judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties is requested. If plaintiff has not resolved its claims against all defendants, the default judgment must be set aside in its entirety unless the court finds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that there is no just reason for delaying entry of a partial judgment. See Arwa Chiropractic, P.C. v. Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, Inc., 961 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2020). For the same reason, the court cannot enter a partial judgment against defendant no. 268 (as to which plaintiff has requested entry of a consent judgment) without making the findings required by Rule 54(b). Because no Rule 54(b) finding has been requested, plaintiff's motion 235 for entry of a consent judgment against defendant no. 268 is denied without prejudice. Further, because setting aside the default judgment in its entirety (which plaintiff suggests it wants in order to continue settlement negotiations) would be likely to disrupt any ongoing efforts to collect it, the court declines to vacate the default judgment on its own motion. Plaintiff may file an amended motion to reopen or a motion for a Rule 54(b) finding, making clear what relief it is requesting and what Federal Rules of Civil Procedure support that relief. For the reasons stated above, the court strikes the above-listed defendants from the default judgment. The motion for a consent judgment against defendant no. 268 is denied without prejudice. The motion to reopen the case is denied without prejudice since plaintiff has not made clear whether it wishes to set aside the default judgment in its entirety or wishes to move for a Rule 54(b) finding. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/19/2023)
10/18/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff MD, LLC Entry of Consent Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1)(Judge, James) (Entered: 10/18/2023)
10/18/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff MD, LLC Motion to Reopen the Case and Amend Order (Judge, James) (Entered: 10/18/2023)
10/16/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/16/2023.Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/16/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Voluntary Dismissal Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/16/2023. Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/16/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Plaintiff's motion 230 to dismiss voluntarily its claims against appearing defendants is granted. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment 212 against non-appearing defendants is granted. Order of dismissal as to appearing defendants and default judgment to follow. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
10/13/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MOTION by Plaintiff MD, LLC to dismiss as to Certain Defendants (Judge, James) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
10/05/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Signed by the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall on 10/5/2023. Mailed notice(mjc, ) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
10/05/23	MD LLC v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations 1:23-CV-00877 ( N.D. IL )	MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Enter order granting plaintiff's motion 225 to dismiss voluntarily seven settling defendants and lift the asset freeze as to those defendants. In accordance with the order, the following defendants have been dismissed: Shenzhen Oubo Technology Co., Ltd., defendant no. 7; House-hold Gardening Store, defendant no. 36; Housekeeping Tidy Buyer Store, defendant no. 37; Convenience Life Store, defendant no. 42; Pegasus Store Store, defendant no. 45; WGR, defendant no. 258; and SkinArtwork, defendant no. 289. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/05/2023) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: Enter order granting plaintiff's motion 225 to dismiss voluntarily seven settling defendants and lift the asset freeze as to those defendants. In accordance with the order, the following defendants have been dismissed: Shenzhen Oubo Technology Co., Ltd., defendant no. 7; House-hold Gardening Store, defendant no. 36; Housekeeping Tidy Buyer Store, defendant no. 37; Convenience Life Store, defendant no. 42; Pegasus Store Store, defendant no. 45; WGR, defendant no. 258; and SkinArtwork, defendant no. 289. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/05/2023)