A GBC Schedule A Case Dismissed With Prejudice for Judge-Shopping and Abuse of Process

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. ("GBC") is a frequent plaintiff-side filer of Schedule A actions in the Northern District of Illinois — a name many cross-border sellers have come to know.

A recent Schedule A matter it handled has drawn considerable attention. On January 12 of this year, Judge John Robert Blakey ruled in a case GBC brought for plaintiff Marshall Amplification PLC (No. 1:25-cv-13829). Finding that the plaintiff had trimmed defendants from one case and moved them into another, apparently to avoid judges likely to rule against it — particularly on the propriety of joining multiple defendants — the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for abuse of the judicial process.

The progress and core dispute in the Marshall Amplification matter can be traced through three stages, turning on two focal points: joinder of defendants and forum shopping.

I. Adjusting Defendants After Filing to Avoid the Joinder Dispute

Marshall Amplification PLC initially sued for trademark infringement, naming nine defendants in the classic Schedule A mass format. After the case was assigned to Judge Blakey, the plaintiff promptly filed an amended complaint reducing the defendants to one. Judge Blakey later noted in a minute entry that the purpose of that maneuver was that it "avoids any joinder issues."

II. The Court Orders a Check on Related Prior Cases and Flags Forum Shopping

On November 18, 2025, Judge Blakey directed the plaintiff to file a supplemental report confirming whether the nine original defendants had been sued on the same intellectual property claims in earlier cases. He expressly cited the reasoning in Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (No. 1:25-cv-03459), heard by Judge Tharp, warning that a plaintiff who names defendants in an earlier case, dismisses to avoid an adverse joinder ruling, and then refiles is engaged in forum shopping.

In its December 1, 2025 supplemental report, the plaintiff acknowledged that all defendants in this case originated from three earlier Northern District of Illinois actions (Nos. 25-cv-13631, 25-cv-13709, and 25-cv-13783), and that in each of those cases it had filed an amended complaint reducing the defendants to one and then filed separate new actions against the remainder.

In 25-cv-13631, the presiding judge required the plaintiff to justify joinder, after which the plaintiff changed the defendant list. In 25-cv-13709 and 25-cv-13783, the plaintiff changed the defendant list on its own initiative after assignment; the presiding judge subsequently also required justification for joinder.

III. The Final Ruling: Abuse of Process and Dismissal With Prejudice

On January 12, 2026, weighing the plaintiff's response against the record of the earlier cases, Judge Blakey ruled. He found that the plaintiff "has attempted to join defendants it has already thrice conceded … may not properly be joined in one suit … repeatedly naming the exact same group or subgroup of defendants in new cases until a case is assigned to a judge the Plaintiff believes to be hospitable to Plaintiff's own theory of joinder."

He further found the conduct a deliberate abuse of the judicial process: had the plaintiff possessed a good-faith factual and legal basis for joining these defendants, it could have maintained that position before the presiding judge in the earlier cases (and appealed where appropriate) — but it did not. Instead, "when challenged, Plaintiff cut and ran, then filed a new suit, seeking to join the same parties based upon the same allegations." That was not only an egregious form of forum shopping but a waste of scarce judicial resources. The court accordingly dismissed the case with prejudice, barring the plaintiff from suing again on the same facts.

IV. A Comparable Case

I had previously identified a similar situation involving different counsel but comparable tactics. In an earlier piece on the state of Schedule A practice in the Northern District of Illinois after Judge Kness rejected the mass asset-freeze mechanism in cross-border TRO cases, we discussed Mou v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (No. 25-cv-13203), filed last October.

There the plaintiff filed under the traditional sealed-complaint-plus-Schedule A model, and the case was randomly assigned to Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. Of the 36 defendants, 26 had appeared in another case brought by the same plaintiff — a case assigned to Judge Kness, who takes a strict view of the Schedule A model, and which the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed after its TRO application was denied. On the civil cover sheet in the new case, the plaintiff answered "no" to whether the case had previously been dismissed, concealing the relationship. Judge Tharp caught it, stating in the record: "These tactics raise the specter of forum shopping: filing a claim, dismissing that claim in the face of an adverse ruling, and then filing a new suit that presents the same claim before a different judge."

Judge Tharp then asked the court's Executive Committee to reassign the case to Judge Kness, and the Committee entered a reassignment order. After a hearing, Judge Kness directed that "Plaintiff is directed to file a statement on the docket to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on the appearance of forum shopping by Plaintiff." The plaintiff filed its statement on time; at a hearing on December 22, Judge Kness indicated he would consider it and stayed the case pending further determination. As of January 21 of this year there had been no further development.

V. Conclusion

Cases like these arise largely from the divergent attitudes among Northern District of Illinois judges toward Schedule A matters — from Judges Kness and Chang, skeptical of mass joinder and mass asset freezes, to Chief Judge Kendall, who supports continuing the traditional Schedule A model.

That divergence appears to have prompted some plaintiffs to attempt forum shopping to avoid unfavorable judges, which has become the procedural flashpoint in these cases. Judge Blakey's ruling in Marshall Amplification sets a clear and severe precedent against forum shopping in Schedule A litigation. The dispositive nature of the ruling signals that procedural maneuvering undertaken purely to avoid an unfavorable judge carries a very high risk of loss — and of losing the right to sue at all. For all participants in cross-border intellectual property litigation, the lesson is that plaintiffs must be far more careful in changing parties during a case, and defendants have gained an additional line of defense.

This article addresses general legal questions only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter.