TRO Case
LG Electronics Inc. et al v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A
Trademark Infringement
Case No.
1:2026-cv-24374
Filing Date
Jun 23, 2026
Plaintiff
LG Electronics Inc. et al
Court
Florida Southern District Court
Docket Entries (16)
Jul 24, 2026
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. [17]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a claim (1) prior to a defendant's filing of an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or (2) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Here, Defendant has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Notice, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/24/2026. (ss02)
Jul 23, 2026
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc.
Jul 14, 2026
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the record. On June 25, 2026, the Court entered its Omnibus Order Regarding Schedule "A" Causes of Action, which provides that any "motions for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or alternative service must include allegations that justify joinder of multiple defendants[.]" See (ECF No. 6) at 4. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Early Discovery & Order Restraining Transfer of Assets (the "TRO Motion"), asserting that joinder of sixty-six (66) Defendants is proper because: (1) there is substantial evidentiary overlap in the facts as to each Defendant as they are each selling LG-branded water filters for refrigerators and operating eBay online stores that source products from China; (2) there is "a strong likelihood that Defendants have engaged in coordinated actions or are commonly owned or controlled"; and (3) forcing Plaintiffs to file individual lawsuits against each Defendant would frustrate judicial economy. See (ECF No. 14) at 7-10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 requires that allegations against each defendant arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). "Simply committing the same type of violation in the same way does not link defendants together for the purposes of joinder." Omega, SA v. Individuals, Bus. Entities, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 650 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (quoting AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). Despite Plaintiffs' efforts to link Defendants based off their pattern of infringement, Plaintiffs ultimately "speculate[] as to the sellers' relationships without supporting evidence." See Price v. Individuals, P'Ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 821 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1334 (M.D. Fla. 2026). Specifically, Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendants likely have engaged in coordinated action or even are commonly owned is based on mere speculation, which is not nearly sufficient to show that joinder is warranted. See id. at 1334-35 (dismissing as to all but one defendant on allegations substantially similar to the ones in instant case). Finally, the Court notes that its discretion to sever misjoined parties is "virtually unfettered." See Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2014). The Court chooses to exercise that discretion here, where Plaintiffs would avoid $26,325.00 in filing fees if allowed to proceed against all sixty-six (66) Defendants in this case. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the TRO Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants except Defendant aiognao2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Defendant aiognao2 as the only Defendant in this action. In light of this Order, the TRO Motion (ECF No. 14) and Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants (ECF No. 15) (together, the "Motions") are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiffs seek to proceed with this action, they may refile the Motions within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/14/2026. (ss02)
Jul 13, 2026
Plaintiff's MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, Early Discovery, and Order Restraining Assets by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. Responses due by 7/27/2026.
Jul 13, 2026
Plaintiff's NOTICE of Filing Schedule A to the Complaint by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. re [12] Order on Ex Parte Motion, Order on Motion to Seal
Jul 13, 2026
Plaintiff's MOTION for an Order Authorizing Alternative Service re [12] Order on Ex Parte Motion, Order on Motion to Seal, by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. Responses due by 7/27/2026.
Jul 09, 2026
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal. [11]. Therein, Plaintiffs request that Schedule A to Plaintiffs' Complaint "remain under seal until the Court has the opportunity to rule on Plaintiffs' request for temporary ex parte relief and, if granted, the relief ordered therein has been effectuated." Id. at 2-3. Motions to file documents under seal or to proceed anonymously or pseudonymously in intellectual property rights cases are disfavored. See Landmark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 839 (1978) ("The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern."); Chi. Trib. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1311 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process." (citation omitted)) (per curiam); Doe v. Frank, 951 F.2d 320, 323 (11th Cir. 1992) ("It is the exceptional case in which a plaintiff may proceed under a fictitious name.") (per curiam). Accordingly, such motions shall be denied absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. See Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). Here, Plaintiffs argue temporary sealing is required because they "have good reason to believe that providing advance notification of Plaintiffs' claims would cause Defendants to hide or transfer their ill-gotten assets, inventory, and related records beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and thereby thwart the Court's ability to grant meaningful relief." See (ECF No. 11) at 2. Plaintiffs' Motion fails to articulate any particular reason these particular Defendants are likely to destroy evidence. Further, the Motion fails to articulate exceptional circumstances necessitating the temporary sealing of portions of the court file. See, e.g., Zorro Prods., Inc. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'Ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-CV-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *2-5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2023) (explaining why a motion to seal will rarely be justified in a Schedule A case). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion [11] is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file Schedule A as an attachment to the Complaint on the public docket on or before July 13, 2026. Further, Plaintiffs filed a sealed Ex Parte Motion for Entry of Temporary Restraining Order, Early Discovery & Order Restraining Transfer of Assets [9] and sealed Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing Alternate Service of Process on Defendants [10] (collectively, the "Sealed Ex Parte Motions"). In light of the Court denying Plaintiffs' Motion to File Under Seal, all filings must now appear on the public docket. However, in lieu of automatically unsealing the filings and revealing information Plaintiffs may not wish to make public, the Court DENIES the Sealed Ex Parte Motions without prejudice. Plaintiffs may refile the Sealed Ex Parte Motions and the accompanying exhibits on the public docket on or before July 13, 2026. Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this Action. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 7/9/2026. (ss02)
Jul 08, 2026
Order
Jul 08, 2026
Plaintiff's NOTICE of Verified Response to Omnibus Order by LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., LG Electronics Inc. re [6] Administrative Order
Jun 29, 2026
ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY PROCEDURES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein on 6/29/2026. See attached document for full details.
Jun 25, 2026
PAPERLESS ORDER REFERRING PRETRIAL DISCOVERY MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN. PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. � 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. Any motion affecting deadlines set by the Court's Scheduling Order is excluded from this referral, unless specifically referred by separate Order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Elfenbein's discovery procedures. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/25/2026. (ss02)
Jun 25, 2026
OMNIBUS ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE "A" CAUSES OF ACTION. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/25/2026. (ss02)
Jun 25, 2026
PAPERLESS PRETRIAL ORDER. This order has been entered upon the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel is hereby ORDERED to forward to all defendants, upon receipt of a responsive pleading, a copy of this Order. It is further ORDERED that S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1 shall apply to this case and the parties shall hold a scheduling conference no later than twenty (20) days after the filing of the first responsive pleading by the last responding defendant, or within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint, whichever occurs first. However, if all defendants have not been served by the expiration of this deadline, Plaintiff shall move for an enlargement of time to hold the scheduling conference, not to exceed 90 days from the filing of the Complaint. Within ten (10) days of the scheduling conference, counsel shall file a joint scheduling report. Failure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth above may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs. The parties should note that the time period for filing a joint scheduling report is not tolled by the filing of any other pleading, such as an amended complaint or Rule 12 motion. The scheduling conference may be held via telephone. At the conference, the parties shall comply with the following agenda that the Court adopts from S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1: (1) Documents (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.1 and 2) - The parties shall determine the procedure for exchanging a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents and other evidence that is reasonably available and that a party expects to offer or may offer if the need arises. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). (a) Documents include computations of the nature and extent of any category of damages claimed by the disclosing party unless the computations are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). (b) Documents include insurance agreements which may be at issue with the satisfaction of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D). (2) List of Witnesses - The parties shall exchange the name, address and telephone number of each individual known to have knowledge of the facts supporting the material allegations of the pleading filed by the party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose this information. (3) Discussions and Deadlines (S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.B.2) - The parties shall discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. Failure to comply with this Order or to exchange the information listed above may result in sanctions and/or the exclusion of documents or witnesses at the time of trial. S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.1.I. The parties are hereby on notice that this Court requires all filings to be formatted in 12 point Times New Roman font and double spaced, including any footnotes, with one inch margins on all sides. Failure to follow these formatting guidelines may result in the filing being stricken, any opposing filing being granted by default, and the imposition of other sanctions, including attorney's fees and costs. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. The parties shall seek extensions of time in a timely fashion. "A motion for extension of time is not self-executing. Yet, by filing these motions on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this." Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal citations omitted). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2016-70 of the Southern District of Florida and consistent with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's Local Rules and Internal Operating Procedures, within three (3) days of the conclusion of a trial or other proceeding, parties must file via CM/ECF electronic versions of documentary exhibits admitted into evidence, including photographs of non-documentary physical exhibits. The Parties are directed to comply with each of the requirements set forth in Administrative Order 2016-70 unless directed otherwise by the Court. Telephonic appearances are not permitted for any purpose. Upon reaching a settlement in this matter the parties are instructed to notify the Court by telephone and to file a Notice of Settlement within twenty-four (24) hours. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 6/25/2026. (ss02)
Jun 24, 2026
FORM AO 120 SENT TO DIRECTOR OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK
Jun 23, 2026
Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge K. Michael Moore. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website.
Jun 23, 2026