Flava Works, Inc. v. Momient, No. 11 C 6306, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur denied plaintiff Flava Works’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant’s copyright infringement counterclaims. The fact that defendant did not plead the dates of the alleged copyright infringement was not fatal to the counterclaims. Flava Work’s statute of limitations argument was an affirmative defense and defendant was not required to plead facts refuting it as part of its counterclaims.
The Court also noted that pro se defendant’s periodic failure to appear for hearings has caused the case to move or not move in “fits and starts.” The Court “cautioned [defendant] . . . that such inattention could prove costly if repeated.”
Flava Works, Inc. v. Momient, No. 11 C 6306, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur, after reading plaintiff FlavaWorks’ answer to defendant’s copyright counterclaims, sua sponte ordered FlavaWorks to produce a copy of the Commission Work Agreement that FlavaWorks alleged assigned all rights in the videos and photographs at issue to FlavaWorks. The Court reasoned that deciding the issue of whether the Agreement transferred defendant’s rights in his works to FlavaWorks would move a case forward that had otherwise been largely a series of “procedural skirmishes.” To the extent that there was not sufficient documentary evidence to establish the necessary facts, the Court asked the parties to submit a brief statement regarding how the issue could be effectively brought before the Court.
Eiserman & Assocs., LLC v. Rosen, No. 13 C 1315, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-33, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-60, No. 13 C 1741, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Shoppertrak RCT Corp. v. Objectvideo, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
In each of these cases, Judge Shadur entered similar orders requiring the plaintiff to provide the Court a courtesy copy of its newly filed complaint within one week of the date of the opinion. The Clerk of the Court recently ended its practice of delivering each chambers a courtesy hard copy of any new complaints that it drew. As such, the Court had stopped exempting counsel from its Local Rule 5.2(f) obligation to provide copies of complaints. Going forward, counsel were required to file courtesy copies of complaints. Courtesy copies of complaints are critical in order to allow the Court to control its docket by:
- Reviewing the contents of each complaint;
- Issuing sua sponte orders as necessary regarding the complaint;
- Setting an initial status; and
- Creating a “bible sheet” for the binder the Court maintains as to each case before it.