File size: 3,199 Bytes
648d58b |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 |
"
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ART ASK AGENCY, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20-cv-1666
)
v. ) Hon. Steven C. Seeger
)
THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )
PARTNERSHIPS AND )
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS )
IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A )
HERETO, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
ORDER
Meanwhile, the world is in the midst of a global pandemic. The President has declared a
national emergency. The Governor has issued a state-wide health emergency. As things stand,
the government has forced all restaurants and bars in Chicago to shut their doors, and the schools
are closed, too. The government has encouraged everyone to stay home, to keep infections to a
minimum and help contain the fast-developing public health emergency.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois took action last week
to protect the public, issuing General Order No. 20-0012 entitled IN RE: CORONAVIRUS
COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY. See www.ilnd.uscourts.gov (last visited March 16, 2020)
(bold and all caps in original). On March 16, the Executive Committee issued an amended Order
that, among other things, holds all civil litigation in abeyance. Id.
Last week, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Dckt. No. 11)
against the Defendants (who are located abroad) and requested a hearing. See Dckt. No. 1, at
¶ 12. This Court thought that it was a bad time to hold a hearing on the motion. So, this Court
Case: 1:20-cv-01666 Document #: 27 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2438
2
moved the hearing by a few weeks to protect the health and safety of our community, including
counsel and this Court’s staff. See Dckt. No. 19. Waiting a few weeks seemed prudent.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it will suffer an irreparable injury from waiting a few
weeks. At worst, Defendants might sell a few more counterfeit products in the meantime. But
Plaintiff makes no showing about the anticipated loss of sales. One wonders if the fake fantasy
products are experiencing brisk sales at the moment.
In response, Plaintiff Art Ask Agency and its counsel filed a motion for reconsideration.
See Dckt. No. 20. They ask this Court to re-think its scheduling order. They want a hearing this
week (telephonically if need be).
The world is facing a real emergency. Plaintiff is not. The motion to reconsider the
scheduling order is denied.
Case: 1:20-cv-01666 Document #: 27 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2439
3
Date: March 18, 2020
Steven C. Seeger
United States District Judge
Case: 1:20-cv-01666 Document #: 27 Filed: 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2440
"
|