Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-876 - Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Bloomingdale Fire Protection District et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-876 - Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Bloomingdale Fire Protection District et al
August 20, 2014
PDF | More
he property or transaction that is the subject of the action," Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, as ADS seeks an injunction that it claims would bind Du-Comm. Therefore, Du-Comm's motion to intervene, R. 115, is granted. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/20/2014:Mailed notice(srn, ) MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Du-Comm's motion satisfies Rule 24's timeliness requirement in that Du-Comm filed its motion within two months of ADS filing its amended complaint. Further, Du-Comm clearly has "an interest relating to t
September 8, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons, Cross Points's motion to dismiss 95 is granted; Chicago Metro's motion to dismiss 99 is granted; Orland's motion to dismiss 91 is granted in part and denied in part; and Tyco's motion to dismiss 86 is granted in part and denied in part. Counts I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII, are dismissed without prejudice; and Counts III, VI, and XIV, remain. Alarm Detection has until October 8, 2015 to replead any of the claims the Court has dismissed if it can cure any of the defects noted above. Additionally, Alarm Detection's motion to strike 123 is denied, and Alarm Detection's motions for a preliminary injunction 107108184 are denied without prejudice as a number of the parties implicated by those motions are no longer in the case. Astatus hearing is set for September 17, 2015, at which the parties should be prepared to discuss whether briefing on Alarm Detection's motion for summary judgment should proceed with respect to Orland and Tyco, and whether the case should be referred to Judge Gilbert to discuss settlement among the remaining parties. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/8/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )
July 7, 2016
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, Alarm Detection's motion for summary judgment on Counts XIII, XIV, XV, and the relevant parts of Count XVI, 246, is denied; Defendants' cross motions for summary judgment on those counts, 270; 278;280, are granted; and those counts are dismissed. Du-Comm's motion to dismiss, 275, is granted, and Counts I, IV, VIII, X, and XVI, to the extent they pertain to Du-Comm, are dismissed. Tyco's motion to dismiss, 276, is denied with respect to Counts II, III, V, VI, VII, IX, XI, and the relevant parts of Count XVI as described in this Order; and granted with respect to Counts I, IV, VIII, X, XII, and the relevant parts of Count XVI as described in this Order, and those counts are dismissed with respect to Tyco. Orland FPD's motion to dismiss, 268, is denied with respect toCounts II, III, V, VI, VII, IX, XI, and the relevant parts of Count XVI as described in this Order; and granted with respect to Count XII and the relevant parts of Count XVI as described in this Order.To the extent Alarm Detection alleges in any of the counts of its complaintthat Tyco or Orland FPD have liability for either Lemont FPD's or Bloomingdale FPD's decisions to transfer responsibility for their former customer contracts to Tyco, those claims are dismissed. The Court found that Lemont FPD's and Bloomingdale FPD's actions were reasonable under the circumstances for thereasons stated in its September 8 Order, and nothing in Alarm Detections secondamended complaint alters that reasoning.Tyco's and Orland FPD's requests for attorneys' fees and costs is denied.Several claims Alarm Detection pleads in its second amended complaint, which it did not plead in its first amended complaint, have survived Tyco's and Orland FPD's motions to dismiss. Thus, an award of fees and costs is not warranted.Considering the detailed nature of the three iterations of Alarm Detection's complaint, the Court is skeptical that there are any other allegations Alarm Detection could make to cure the deficiencies the Court has described with regard to the claims the Court has dismissed. For this reason, the claims dismissed according to this Order are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 7/7/2016:Mailed notice(srn, )