Order | Filed: July 14, 2026
| Entered: July 14, 2026
LG Electronics Inc. et al v. The Individuals, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations identified on Schedule A
Trademark | Florida Southern
Administrative Order ~Util - Terminate Motions
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)