Sarah Fackrell (Chicago-Kent College of Law – Illinois Institute of Technology) has posted Defendant Pinching & Pressing (104 Wash. U. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2027)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
“Schedule A” cases, in which plaintiffs bring cookie-cutter complaints alleging IP infringement against groups of online sellers, continue to be filed in large numbers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. But some Northern District judges are growing skeptical of various parts of this litigation model. Some judges are requiring plaintiffs to post higher bonds when they obtain ex parte asset-freezing TROs. Or refusing to issue such freezes entirely. Other judges are pushing back on the propriety of joining non-transactionally-related sellers, questioning—and sometimes explicitly rejecting—the mass joinder theory that underlies this litigation model. In the wake of these developments, many Schedule A plaintiffs are engaging in what appear to be new forms of judge shopping. This Article analogizes the actions these plaintiffs are taking to certain forms of cheating at roulette—namely, “pinching” and “pressing” bets. This Article investigates and analyzes these developments, situating defendant pinching and pressing in the larger literature about judge-shopping. It suggests new local rules that would increase transparency, promote fairness, and discourage judge-shopping.