mister "not spooky" justin
@misterjustin.bsky.social
420 followers
780 following
2.7K posts
Eat the rich
https://youtu.be/acT_PSAZ7BQ?si=-YN4qbf65ZTvefqS
The Six
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Jotwell TechLaw:
Rebecca Tushnet, Distinguishing Marks, JOTWELL (October 31, 2025) (reviewing Dustin Marlan, Servicing Trade Dress: Demystifying the Tertium Quid, 58 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1513 (2025)), cyber.jotwell.com/distinguishi....
Rebecca Tushnet, Distinguishing Marks, JOTWELL (October 31, 2025) (reviewing Dustin Marlan, Servicing Trade Dress: Demystifying the Tertium Quid, 58 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1513 (2025)), cyber.jotwell.com/distinguishi....
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
TIL that some #ScheduleA plaintiffs have argued that they are entitled to a preliminary asset freeze under *Illinois* state law.
See, e.g., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Schedule A, No. 1:24-cv-04541 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024), ECF 150.
See, e.g., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Schedule A, No. 1:24-cv-04541 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2024), ECF 150.
![The Court herein addresses the pending motions in this case. First, Skechers moves for a prejudgment asset restraint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64. R. 36, R. 43, and R. 98. Rule 64 allows federal courts to “issue all orders necessary and proper to protect the enforceability of a judgment before it becomes final, provided only that the forum state equips its own courts with such remedies.” Philips Med. Sys. Int’l B.V. v. Bruetman, 8 F.3d 600, 604 (7th Cir. 1993). Skechers argues that Illinois law provides for such an asset restraint under 735 ILCS 5/4-101. R. 37 at 4; R. 44 at 9; R. 99 at 8. Under the statute: “[A] creditor having a money claim, whether liquidated or unliquidated, and whether sounding in contract or tort . . . may have an attachment against the property of his or her debtor . . . [including] [w]here the debtor is not a resident of this State.” 735 ILCS 5/4-101. Skecher’s argument fails because Skechers is a plaintiff, not a creditor. A creditor is a “person or entity with a](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/bafkreifm35jh77jntlsd66ozevwazfwgiqlvpohzfpoioguiz7hi6puc3i@jpeg)
![Skecher’s argument fails because Skechers is a plaintiff, not a creditor. A creditor is a “person or entity with a Case: 1:24-cv-04541 Document #: 150 Filed: 11/18/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:6097
2
definite claim against another, esp. a claim that is capable of adjustment and liquidation.” CREDITOR, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (emphasis added). At this stage of litigation, Skechers has a potential claim for money damages, not a definite claim. The Court requested supplemental briefing from Skechers on this issue at R. 115, and Skechers failed to cite any precedent where, after reviewing the Illinois statute, a court found that it applied to a plaintiff with an unresolved claim. See R. 121. Skechers identified U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Rose, 4 N.E.3d 601 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). But in Rose, the party was “a creditor . . . by virtue of promissory notes executed [in his favor].” Id. at 603. Skechers also identified Romans v. Orange Pelican, LLC, No. 22-cv-4169 (N.D. Ill. 2022). And in Romans, the creditor issue was not in dispute and the Court did not address it. Id. at Docket No. 22, pg. 13. For these reasons, Skechers’ motions at R. 36, R. 43, and R. 98 are denied](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hvwhptk4oerwsuzau66ikwfy/bafkreihcxrcufqmrqgti3atzirgnl2rt2gg7iakuqceyscvux3kvi32tfa@jpeg)
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Reposted by mister "not spooky" justin
Sorry, Sarah, but you are now, officially and on the record, a moral degenerate. And you know it.
#racism #SarahPochin #ReformUK
#racism #SarahPochin #ReformUK
