Chicago Corner, LLC v. Hard Lens Media, Inc.

Summary

Chicago Corner sues Hard Lens Media for copyright infringement.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

17:101 Copyright Infringement

Entities in this case

Parties

Chicago Corner, LLC (plaintiff) Hard Lens Media, Inc. (defendant) Rumble Inc. (third party defendant)

Docket entries

1. #932026-09-01

   Quash

2. #922026-08-31

   Extension of Time

3. #882026-06-22

   MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, Plaintiff Chicago Corner LLC's motion for summary judgment is granted for its claims of copyright infringement as to the videos titled "Chicago Corner: Chicag o #M4M4ALL March for Medicare for All Highlights," "Chicago Corner: 2023 Chicago Mayoral Race Petition Drop-Off Coverage," and "Chicago Corner: Happy Holidaze to Chicago from Mayor Lori Lightfoot!." 78 . Defendant HLM's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the video titled "Chicago Corner: Activists Rally Mayor for CHA Land, Ordinance Ends Subminimum Wage,Guest Joe Evans, Barbie & More." 77 . In-person status set for July 22, 2026 at 10:15 AM. Parties should come prepared to discuss procedures for an accounting and any other relief, including declaratory judgment (Count III). Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 6/22/2026. Mailed notice. (jg, )

4. #872026-03-30

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Court grants Attorney John O'Toole's motion to withdraw as attorney 86 . Attorney O'Toole terminated as counsel of record. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 03/30/2026)

5. #862026-03-27

   MOTION by Attorney John M. O'Toole to withdraw as attorney for Chicago Corner, LLC. No party information provided (O'Toole, John) (Entered: 03/27/2026)

6. #852026-02-06

   REPLY by Chicago Corner, LLC to response to motion 82 /s/ Catherine S. Hareas (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Supplement)(Hareas, Catherine) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

7. #842026-02-06

   REPLY by Hard Lens Media, Inc. to MOTION by Defendant Hard Lens Media, Inc., Counter Claimant Hard Lens Media, Inc. for summary judgment 77 (Davis, Michael) (Entered: 02/06/2026)

8. #832026-01-09

   RESPONSE by Chicago Corner, LLCin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Hard Lens Media, Inc., Counter Claimant Hard Lens Media, Inc. for summary judgment 77 /s/ Catherine S. Hareas (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Supplement Statement of Additional Facts, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits)(Hareas, Catherine) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

9. #822026-01-09

   RESPONSE by Hard Lens Media, Inc. to MOTION by Plaintiff Chicago Corner, LLC for summary judgment /s/ Catherine S. Hareas 78 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Response to Statement of Facts)(Davis, Michael) (Entered: 01/09/2026)

10. #812025-12-31

    ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/31/2025: Mailed notice. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/05/2026)

11. #782025-12-05

    MOTION by Plaintiff Chicago Corner, LLC for summary judgment /s/ Catherine S. Hareas (Attachments: # 1 SJ Memorandum, # 2 SUMF, # 3 Exhibits)(Hareas, Catherine) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

12. #772025-12-05

    MOTION by Defendant Hard Lens Media, Inc., Counter Claimant Hard Lens Media, Inc. for summary judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits A-S)(Davis, Michael) (Entered: 12/05/2025)

13. #762025-11-08

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Parties do not require expert discovery. All discovery is now closed. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed, and the case is returned to the presiding District Judge. Mailed notice (Kim, Young) (Entered: 11/08/2025)

14. #752025-10-08

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Young B. Kim: Defendant's fee petition 72 is granted in the amount of $2,889.32. In its petition, Defendant seeks a total of $3,089.32 in connection with its motion to quash (R. 58). First, the court finds the rate Defendant seeks for Attorney Michael S. Davis to be eminently reasonable. The court also finds the number of hours spent in connection with the preparation and filing of the motion to quash and fee petition to be reasonable. The court reduces the fee amount sought by $200 because the task Attorney Davis performed on August 24, 2025, does not appear to be related to the motion to quash. (See R. 72 at 4.) In opposition to the fee petition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant should not be allowed to recover any fees it had to incur. (See generally R. 74.) But Plaintiff should have presented its argument against Defendant's request for fees in its response to the motion to quash. Instead, Plaintiff in its response to the motion simply asked the court to "deny Defendant's request for attorney's fees," without any developed arguments. (R. 65 at 8.) Besides, this court exercises its discretion and finds that Defendant should not bear the expense of moving to quash the subpoenas in this case. Plaintiff abused its privilege to issue subpoenas and failed to meet its obligations under Rule 45 before serving them as discussed in this court's ruling. (R. 69.) Plaintiff is ordered to reimburse Defendant the amount of $2,889.32 by no later than October 24, 2025. If Plaintiff is unable to do so, Attorney John M. O'Toole---the attorney who signed and served the improper subpoenas---is obligated to satisfy this order by the same deadline. Defendant is ordered to file a motion for sanctions by October 29, 2025, if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. Mailed notice (Kim, Young) (Entered: 10/08/2025)

15. #742025-10-07

    RESPONSE by Chicago Corner, LLCin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant Hard Lens Media, Inc. for attorney fees Presented before Magistrate Judge 72 (O'Toole, John) (Entered: 10/07/2025)

16. #732025-10-01

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Status hearing held. Parties report on the status of the case. Discovery has closed. The parties are expecting to file cross-motions for summary judgement. Motions for summary judgment due 12/5/25; Responses due 1/9/26; replies due 2/6/26. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 10/01/2025)

17. #722025-09-30

    MOTION by Defendant Hard Lens Media, Inc. for attorney fees Presented before Magistrate Judge (Davis, Michael) (Entered: 09/30/2025)

18. #712025-09-24

    MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: In person status hearing set for 10/1/25 at 9:30 AM to discuss next steps. Mailed notice. (jg, ) (Entered: 09/24/2025)

19. 2024-01-11

    CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category Three). (lw, )

20. 2024-01-11

    CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (lw, )

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.