MIAMI -- ADT's motion for summary judgment against its alarm system competitor Alder Holdings LLC's, counterclaims against it was granted in part and denied in part Feb. 7 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg determined the outcome of the case.
The court granted the summary judgment for contempt for permanent injunction, pointing out the plaintiffs' properly issued a written notice of alleged violations to the defendants, that included the facts the plaintiffs knew at the time. They also showed that they issued more notices as they became aware of more alleged violations.
U.S. District Court Judge Robin L. Rosenberg
Yet the court didn’t grant summary judgment for the tortious interference claims, determining there are still legitimate issues that can be ironed out with a jury. One of those issues were the plaintiffs' attempt to justify their actions by saying it was their attempt to get back the customers they lost after the defendants’ alleged actions.
Apparently, the defendants’ evidence that ADT's representatives are trained to tell Alder Holdings’ customers to cancel their contracts was enough to show that ADT had displayed inappropriate behavior.
The court also denied summary judgment for the unfair competition allegations, stating there are legitimate issues of material fact that can be heard in trial.
ADT and Alder have a history of court battles. The Southern District Court in Miami entered a permanent injunction in October 2017 that banned Alder Holdings from making any false statements about ADT. ADT then followed with the current lawsuit, alleging that Alder Holdings didn’t keep up its end of the bargain and violated the unfair competition act and Lanham Act along with other state laws.
Alder Holdings then filed counterclaims, saying it was ADT that was in contempt of the injunction after it didn’t issue required information, marking some documentation for “attorney’s eyes only,” and also contacting customers before complying with the resolution process.
Alder Holdings also accused ADT of tortious interference with its customers and unfair competition. The court granted in part and denied in part ADT’s response via a motion for summary judgment.