ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3877
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District adopted a 2009 ordinance requiring commercial and multi-family buildings to connect to the District’s wireless monitoring system and to contract with a single private provider through the District.
- The ordinance would displace existing private alarm companies serving customers within the District and imposed five-year lease contracts for equipment owned by the District.
- The District selected Chicago Metro as the exclusive equipment provider and designated the District’s central monitoring board as the direct recipient of signals.
- Alarm companies sued asserting federal and state claims; the district court preliminarily enjoined the ordinance, then granted summary judgment and the permanent injunction on state-law grounds.
- This Seventh Circuit appeal held that direct-connect and wireless requirements are within the District’s authority under the Illinois Fire Protection District Act, but the exclusive-provider aspect is not, as to be severed from the rest.
- The court remanded for further proceedings to address remaining claims, including potential antitrust concerns and fees issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to require direct-connect to the district board | District lacks authority to direct-connect to its board | District has authority under Section 11 to adopt fire prevention standards parallel to national standards | Direct-connect is authorized |
| Authority to require wireless communications | NFPA standards do not permit exclusive district control or wireless-only signals | Wireless is a permissible communications method under NFPA 72 and parallel to standards | Wireless requirement is authorized |
| Exclusive provider or monopoly over transmitters and services | District monopoly over transmitter equipment is not authorized | NFPA 72 does not authorize exclusive provision by the District | Exclusive provider provision invalid; severable; rest survives |
| Fees charged to alarm companies for direct-connect access | Fees would entrench monopoly and harm competition | 19 Illinois statute allows certain fees for non-residents only | Fees not permitted under Section 11f(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkes v. Deerfield-Bannockburn Fire Protection Dist., 399 N.E.2d 617 (Ill. App. 1979) (fire districts derive powers from statute; no inherent home rule power)
- Glenview Rural Fire Protection Dist. v. Raymond, 311 N.E.2d 302 (Ill. App. 1974) (fire districts’ powers limited to those expressly granted by statute)
- Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. v. Village of Hinsdale, 761 N.E.2d 782 (Ill. App. 2001) (NFPA 72 permits direct-connect to fire board; Hinsdale upheld direct-connect under NFPA 72)
- Collins v. Hamilton, 349 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2003) (de novo review standards; states interpreting their laws)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Menards, Inc., 285 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2002) (federal standards in state-law contexts; contract and injunctive considerations)
- Woidtke v. St. Clair County, 335 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2003) (state-law questions resolved by predicting state supreme court approach)