Sarah FackrellJudge Jenkins grants sanctions against attorney Patrick Jones and his former client, Expiditee (#Xped) for misconduct in a #ScheduleA case:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127.146.0.pdf
Counsel for #Xped/Expeditee has asked the court to reconsider its order granting sanctions against them: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127.125.0.pdf
They argue, in particular, that their trademark infringement claim was not frivolous because it was based on use in metatags, not use on the products.
But they still call the accused flags "counterfeits." 🤦🏻‍♀️
Some background here:
https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111144480070131605
Reconsideration – #125 in Xped LLC v. The Entities Listed on Exhibit 1 (N.D. Ill., 1:21-cv-06237) – CourtListener.com
MOTION by Plaintiff PMJ PLLC for reconsideration regarding Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim,,,,, order on motion for summary judgment,,,,, order on motion for attorney fees,,,,, order on motion for sanctions,,,,, text entry,,,, 121, memorandum opinion and order 122 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Jones Decl, # 2 Exhibit B - RTL MAGA Country, # 3 Exhibit C - Service on PayPal Defendants, # 4 Exhibit D - RTL absconds with assets, # 5 Exhibit E - Aff of SMB)(Jones, Patrick) (Entered: 10/03/2023)
Remember #Xped? It's filed an amended complaint using its true name, Expeditee LLC, following Judge Jenkins' order sanctioning both the plaintiff and its counsel.
New complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127.124.0.pdf
Background:
https://mastodon.social/@design_law/111024034254743916
Let's take a look, shall we?
@alysondecker @hewittlaw I have no inside info but I'm guessing that Davis hired Jones--and this complaint was in-process--before Judge Jenkins' decision came out.
Also, Judge Jenkins expressly refused to decide whether Jones, his old firm (which appears to no longer exist), or both were responsible for the misconduct.
In that situation does Jones have any obligation to make Davis aware of the #Xped decision? Maybe @dkluft has thoughts?
Remember the #Xped case from law week, where the court found "that [the plaintiff], its counsel, or both engaged in bad-faith conduct and committed fraud on the Court"?
Well, the lawyers from that case (who joined a new law firm in January) have filed another #ScheduleA case alleging, inter alia, design patent infringement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.442359/gov.uscourts.ilnd.442359.1.0.pdf
(h/t @hewittlaw
.@ericgoldman on the #XPed decision:
"The court could have punished the plaintiff and Jones even more. . . . Also, the court doesn’t mention referring Jones to the Illinois state bar. I think such referrals should be routine every time a court determines that a lawyer committed fraud on the court."
Schedule A (SAD Scheme) Plaintiff Sanctioned for "Fraud on the Court"-Xped v. Respect the Look - Technology & Marketing Law Blog
This is one of the thousands of “Schedule A” cases, a phenomenon I’ve labeled the “SAD Scheme.” (Technically, the defendants in this case are enumerated on “Exhibit 1” instead of “Schedule A,” but same thing). The court describes the phenomenon:...
Judge Jenkins (who became an NDIL judge in February) sanctions against a #ScheduleA plaintiff and its counsel in a #trademark case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127/gov.uscourts.ilnd.409127.122.0.pdf
"[W]hile some attorneys seem to approach Schedule A cases in a 'cut-and-paste' style, their professional obligations apply with equal force as in any other litigation."
(h/t @chicagolawyer.bsky.social)
