Case Activity (2533)

1. Filed: August 31, 2026 | Entered: August 31, 2026 Swanson Tool Co., Inc. v. Speed North America, Inc.

   840 Trademark | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the joint initial status report. (Dckt. No. 13 ) The parties succeeded in disagreeing on just about everything. The parties disagree about whether there is subject matter jurisdiction (for Count II, anyway), and whether there is personal jurisdiction. The parties disagree about whether discovery should proceed while motions to dismiss are pending. Most of the time, this Court allows discovery to press forward despite the pendency of a motion to dismiss. But not always. It depends on the scope and complexity of the motion, among other things. This Court wants to see the motion to dismiss first. Any party can file a motion to stay discovery if they choose to do so. This Court will hold off on entering a schedule in the meantime. Mailed notice (jjr, ) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

2. Filed: August 31, 2026 | Entered: August 31, 2026 Swanson Tool Co., Inc. v. Speed North America, Inc.

   840 Trademark | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Speed North America's motion for extra pages (Dckt. No. 15 ) is hereby granted, albeit with a little reluctance. The Court grants leave to file a 25-page brief, and Plaintiff can file a 25-page response brief, too. That said, longer briefs are often worse. Sometimes there is so much ground to cover that a 15-page brief can't cut the mustard. That's especially true when a motion addresses lots of claims or lots of parties. But all too often, lawyers write more when they should write less. Extra pages is sometimes an opportunity for legal flab. So think about whether you really need to say that much. (And if you really do, have at it.) Lawyers often get bent out of shape when the other side gets extra pages. But most of the time, they should cheer. On a side note, defense counsel filed a two-page motion, and attached a certificate of service, and then a two-page brief, and then another certificate of service. That's not right, for two reasons. First, parties don't have to file a certificate of service when everyone receives a copy through CM/ECF. Under the Local Rules, "[a] certificate of service is required only when service of a document filed on the Court's E-Filing system is made on a recipient who is not an E-Filer listed on the docket of the proceeding." See L.R. 5.5(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B) ("No certificate of service is required when a paper is served by filing it with the court's electronic-filing system."). The Court handles service through CM/ECF. In effect, the CM/ECF header is the certificate of service. Save yourself the work, and the trouble. Second, there is no need to file a two-page brief to support a two-page motion. Counsel could have simply filed a two-page motion. That's a lot easier than two submissions that say basically the same thing. The motion here served little purpose other than introducing the fact that Defendant had reasons for the request as stated in the brief. It's a lot easier to simply file a short motion, and say what you want and why you want it, without filing a separate brief. There are exceptions, such as motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment. But run-of-the-mill motions typically don't require supporting memos. The Court issues this order in the spirit of trying to be helpful, and make things a little easier for the lawyers. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 08/31/2026)

3. 2531 additional result(s)