1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

AF HOLDINGS LLC, ) 

 ) CASE NO.: 1:12-cv-05080 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Judge: Hon. Suzanne B. Conlon 

 ) Magistrate: Geraldine Soat Brown 

JOHN DOE, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

FOR LEAVE TO CONTINUE STATUS HEARING 

 Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC hereby files this renewed motion for administrative relief and 

respectfully requests that the Court reschedule the status hearing set for August 8, 2012. (ECF 

No. 8.) In Plaintiff’s original motion to continue the status hearing Plaintiff explained that it had 

good cause to do so because Plaintiff’s counsel had to attend another out-of-state legal matter 

and was unable to find an adequate replacement. (ECF No. 10.) The Court denied Plaintiff’s 

original motion for two reasons: 1) Plaintiff’s motion was untimely as the “status hearing was set 

more than a month ago,” and 2) “plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for a hearing on a motion he 

filed and notice on the court’s docket on July 11, 2012.” (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff submits this 

renewed motion in order to address the Court’s concerns. 

 First, Plaintiff’s counsel learned of the out-of-state legal matter only within the last few 

days, and filed its motion for leave to continue the status hearing in a timely manner shortly 

thereafter. (See Declaration of Paul Duffy ¶ 2, attached hereto as Exhibit A). While the status 

hearing has been set for more than a month, Plaintiff was aware of the conflict in legal matters 

for a far shorter period of time. Plaintiff’s original motion was not untimely. 

Case: 1:12-cv-05080 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:78
2 

 Second, Plaintiff’s counsel did, in fact, attend the July 11, 2012 hearing before this Court. 

(Id. ¶ 3.) Indeed, Plaintiff’s counsel attended the July 11, 2012 hearing in regard to two similar 

discovery motions before this Court, one of which was filed in the instant case and the other was 

filed in the action pending in Ingenuity13 LLC v. John Doe, 12-cv-4238 (N.D. Ill. 2012). While 

Plaintiff argued both motions before the Court, the Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motion in 

the Ingenuity case (id., ECF No. 10), but denied the discovery motion in the instant case on the 

basis that Plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the hearing for the second motion. (ECF No. 9.) 

Ostensibly, confusion arose from the fact that two similar motions were argued on the same day. 

When Plaintiff’s counsel learned of the misunderstanding, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted the 

Court’s staff and informed them of this fact. (Declaration of Paul Duffy ¶ 3.) The Court’s staff 

agreed that Plaintiff’s counsel had attended the July 11, 2012 hearing before this Court. (Id.) 

Because Plaintiff’s counsel cannot simultaneously attend both hearings, Plaintiff has 

good cause for continuance of the status hearing and respectfully requests that the Court 

reschedule the status hearing to a future date convenient for the Court and not dismiss the case 

“for want of prosecution,” particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel has fully 

prosecuted this case at every opportunity. 

Respectfully submitted, 

AF Holdings LLC 

DATED: August 7, 2012 

By: /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy (Bar No. 6210496) 

 Prenda Law Inc. 

 161 N. Clark St., Suite 3200 

 Chicago, IL 60601 

 Telephone: (312) 880-9160 

 Facsimile: (312) 893-5677 

 E-mail: paduffy@wefightpiracy.com 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:12-cv-05080 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:79
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 7, 2012, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system.

 /s/ Paul Duffy 

 Paul Duffy

Case: 1:12-cv-05080 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/07/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:80