Loading...
In a recent legal development, U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois issued a stern warning to a law firm involved in a trademark infringement suit. The judge reprimanded Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym lawyers for attempting to engage in what is commonly known as “judge shopping.” This tactic involves dropping many defendants from a lawsuit and filing a new suit against the same defendants, hoping for a more favorable judge. Judge Seeger made his displeasure known in a docket entry on January 18, which was made public recently.
The lawyers initially succeeded in obtaining a new judge for the second suit. However, Judge Seeger quickly identified the maneuver and scolded partner Michael A. Hierl and his colleagues. He ordered them to inform the new judge about the questionable tactic they had employed. During the January 18 hearing, Judge Seeger emphasized that clients have the right to select a forum for their case, but they have no authority to hand-pick a judge. He stated, “Judge shopping ain’t a thing here or anywhere else,” leaving no room for ambiguity in his position.
As a result of Judge Seeger’s intervention, the new judge overseeing the case promptly sent it back to Seeger’s court. The lawyers representing Blue Sphere Inc., the plaintiff in the case, justified their decision to drop 213 defendants from the initial suit by citing the hefty bond requirements imposed by Judge Seeger. Each defendant subjected to a temporary restraining order would require a $10,000 bond, and securing a surety bond for all 218 defendants would amount to $43,600. The plaintiff’s legal team argued that such a financial burden created a significant obstacle for obtaining necessary injunctions against the defendants accused of selling counterfeit clothing under Blue Sphere’s brand name, known as Lucky 13.
Judge Seeger, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, has previously demonstrated a no-nonsense approach when dealing with certain legal matters. In March 2020, he criticized a lawyer for filing an emergency motion to halt the sale of knockoff unicorn art during the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that while the world faced a genuine emergency, the plaintiff did not. Similarly, in March 2023, he advised an employment lawyer to reconsider the tone of a motion that he believed contained excessive language and hyperbole. Judge Seeger’s straightforward demeanor and intolerance for perceived misconduct in the courtroom have garnered attention in legal circles.
Get ahead of the competition by submitting your resume to LawCrossing – don’t wait any longer!
The recent incident involving the law firm’s attempt at judge shopping serves as a reminder that such tactics are not acceptable and will not be tolerated in Judge Seeger’s court or elsewhere. It emphasizes the importance of fairness and impartiality in the judicial process, ensuring that parties cannot manipulate the system to their advantage by seeking more favorable judges. This development also sheds light on the financial barriers plaintiffs face when pursuing legal action against multiple defendants, particularly when bond requirements become a significant hindrance.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
As this case unfolds further, it will undoubtedly contribute to ongoing discussions about proper courtroom conduct and the ethical boundaries that lawyers must adhere to. Judge Seeger’s stern warning serves as a cautionary tale for legal professionals, reinforcing the principles of justice and integrity in pursuing legal remedies.
