ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District
724 F.3d 854
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District (the District) enacted a 2009 ordinance requiring commercial properties to terminate private alarm contracts and use a District-centered wireless monitoring system (Station 3) supplied by Chicago Metropolitan Fire Prevention (Chicago Metro).
- Private alarm companies (plaintiffs) sued, alleging the ordinance exceeded the District's statutory authority, created a monopoly, violated constitutional rights, and harmed safety/reliability; the district court entered a permanent injunction in plaintiffs' favor.
- This Court's 2012 opinion (ADT I) held the District could require a Remote Supervising Station and wireless transmission ("parallel" to NFPA 72) but could not be the exclusive equipment/provider; the case was remanded for revision of the injunction.
- On remand the district court held a four-day evidentiary hearing; the District adopted a 2012 ordinance that repealed the 2009 ordinance but still required signals to be routed through Station 3 via the District's wireless network.
- The evidentiary record showed Station 3 did not meet NFPA 72 (subsidiary/backup) standards, the District's wireless frequency (Industrial/Business) is less reliable than public-safety frequencies, out-of-service rates rose under the District's system, and Central Stations could be accommodated by Du-Comm with pre-population of data.
- The district court entered a Modified Permanent Injunction requiring shutdown of Station 3, allowing private Central Stations to transmit directly to Du-Comm, and directing the District to secure Du-Comm cooperation; the Seventh Circuit affirms the injunction with narrow modifications (striking refund and mandatory adoption-of-latest-NFPA provisions and specific parts of the 2012 ordinance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 ordinance mooted the dispute | New ordinance still injures plaintiffs because it keeps Station 3 and forces use of District network incompatible with existing transmitters | Repeal and replacement mooted controversy; injunction should consider new ordinance | Not moot: 2012 ordinance retained features that block private monitoring and Station 3 noncompliance creates reasonable expectation of continued injury |
| Whether District could require direct-connect to District receiver and wireless-only network under Illinois Fire Protection District Act (parallel to NFPA 72) | District: Act allows choosing Remote Supervising Station and wireless methods; direct-connect is permitted | Plaintiffs: District cannot impose requirements that functionally make it or its chosen vendor sole provider or that contravene NFPA requirements | Court: District may require Remote Supervising Station and wireless means in principle, but as implemented the District's system routed through noncompliant Station 3 and exceeded statutory scope; injunction enjoining forced routing through Station 3 was proper |
| Whether Station 3 complied with NFPA 72 and could serve as intermediary | Plaintiffs: Station 3 is an unsupervised subsidiary station and must meet central/subsidiary standards; it does not meet them | District: Station 3 is an "alternate location" under remote supervising provisions and not subject to subsidiary requirements | Held: Station 3 does not meet NFPA subsidiary/backup requirements; Code does not contemplate an unsupervised intermediary without meeting those standards; shutting Station 3 was appropriate |
| Whether injunction improperly bound nonparty Du-Comm or ordered refunds/adoption of latest NFPA | Plaintiffs: Relief needed includes ensuring Du-Comm cooperation; refunds appropriate | District/Du-Comm: Du-Comm is not a party/agent; injunction exceeds court's power; refunds to third parties improper; court cannot force adoption of future NFPA versions | Held: Injunction directed the District to secure Du-Comm cooperation (permissible because Du-Comm indicated willingness); refunds to subscribers vacated as beyond scope; requirement to adopt current and future NFPA versions vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- ADT Security Svcs., Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection Dist., 672 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2012) (prior opinion: District may require Remote Supervising Station and wireless transmission but may not be sole equipment/provider)
- Knapp v. Northwestern Univ., 101 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996) (standards for reviewing factual findings and injunctions)
- Banister v. Burton, 636 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2011) (harmlessness standard for expert disclosure failures under Rule 26)
- Chicago United Indus., Ltd. v. City of Chicago, 445 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2006) (policy that voluntary cessation does not moot claim absent no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation and mootness principles)
- Fed'n of Adver. Indus. Reps. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2003) (repeal of law moots challenge only absent reasonable expectation of reenactment)
- H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2012) (district court discretion to enjoin third parties in active concert)
- McKenzie v. City of Chicago, 118 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 1997) (plaintiffs lack standing to obtain relief that benefits nonparties)
- Lake Shore Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 511 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 65 notice requirements for binding nonparties)