UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

HANGZHOU CHIC INTELLIGENT 

TECHNOLOGY CO.; and UNICORN 

GLOBAL, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

Defendants.

No. 20 C 4806

Judge Thomas M. Durkin

ORDER

Defendant Gyroor US has moved “to dismiss and sever pursuant to Rule 20 

and Rule 21 and dissolve preliminary injunction [sic].” R. 211. Rule 20(a)(2)(A) 

permits defendants to be “joined in one action . . . if any right to relief is asserted 

against them . . . with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, 

or series of transactions or occurrences.” In February 2020, this Court denied a 

motion to sever in a similar case. See Bose Corp. v. P’ships & Unincorporated Assocs.

Id’d on Schedule “A”, 334 F.R.D. 511 (N.D. Ill. 2020). The Court finds joinder proper 

in this case for the reasons stated in Bose.

Joinder is even more proper in this case for several reasons largely related to 

the advanced state of the proceedings. First, Gyroor’s motion is the second of four it 

has filed since it appeared in the case on January 7, 2021. See R. 165; R. 217; R. 231.

This piecemeal motion practice smacks of intentional delay rather than a sincere 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 284 Filed: 06/09/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:6933
2

attempt to bring this case to resolution. While there is no express time limit on 

making a motion under Rules 20 and 21, the Court has the responsibility to manage 

the case so it proceeds efficiently and the discretion to decide how that should be 

accomplished. Gyroor’s failure to address joinder in its initial motion to dismiss, and 

its decision to file multiple serial motions, has unnecessarily delayed and complicated 

this case. That conduct counsels in favor of denying the motion. 

Additionally, while Plaintiffs originally joined 94 internet merchants in this 

case, settlements and default judgments have whittled that number down to 

approximately 24. See R. 248. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that these remaining 

entities are all corporately related to Gyroor or defendant Tomoloo, which Plaintiffs 

also contend are corporately related to each other. See R. 227. Gyroor’s arguments 

against joinder may have had some force months ago when it first entered the case 

and there were still many defendants in the case related only by their similar conduct. 

But Plaintiffs now have made plausible allegations and contentions that the 

remaining defendants are all corporately related.1 That is a sufficient basis for 

joinder.

At bottom, Gyroor has not identified any reason to sever the remaining 

defendants at this late stage of the case. The motion to sever is denied.

Gyroor’s motion also purportedly seeks to dissolve the preliminary injunction. 

Gyroor’s opening brief made no argument on this issue. Gyroor’s reply addressed the 

1 Indeed, Plaintiffs contend that all remaining defendants will be represented by the 

same counsel. See R. 283 at 3.

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 284 Filed: 06/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:6934
3

issue, mostly arguing that Gyroor had received insufficient notice. These arguments 

are rejected because Gyroor waived them by failing to raise them in its opening brief. 

See United States CFTC v. Kraft Foods Grp., Inc., 153 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1023 (N.D. Ill. 

2015) (“Because this argument was raised for the first time in Defendants’ reply brief, 

it is waived.”). 

In any event, the Court is skeptical of Gyroor’s contention that it received 

insufficient notice because the Court has given permission for electronic service, 

making notice relatively straightforward, and Gyroor has participated in the case for 

several months without raising this issue. Gyroor contends that it was prejudiced by 

late notice because it was not given “an opportunity to defend itself.” R. 281 at 1. 

Gyroor has filed four motions in this case and appeared at four hearings. See R. 207; 

R. 226; R. 233; R. 276. Gyroor has had ample opportunity to “defend itself.”

Conclusion

Therefore, Gyroor’s motion to sever, dismiss, and dissolve the preliminary 

injunction [211] is denied. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike [283] is denied as moot.

ENTERED:

______________________________

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

United States District Judge

Dated: June 9, 2021

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 284 Filed: 06/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:6935