Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Bloomingdale Fire Protection District et al
| Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. |
| Bloomingdale Fire Protection District, Lemont Fire Protection District, Orland Fire Protection District, Tyco Integrated Security, LLC and Cross Points, Inc. |
| 1:2014cv00876 |
| February 7, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Thomas M. Durkin |
| Antitrust |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
546
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Court taxes costs against Alarm Detection in the following amounts:$59,261.00 owed to Tyco; $17,960.29 owed to Orland; and $2,204.70 owed to Du-Comm. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/8/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
316
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, [2 76], 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 decisi ons 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 S eptember 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 compla int, 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 Detecti on'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, )
|
|
Filing
237
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 Ty co'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 reple ad 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 107 108 184 are de nied 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 moti on 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, )
|
|
Filing
142
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 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, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
