Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adt Security Services, Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 17, 2015

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LISLE-WOODRIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, et al., Defendants

Page 858

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 859

For ADT Security Services, Inc., Plaintiff: A. Christopher Young, PRO HAC VICE, Robert L. Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Philaldephia, PA; Bruce Lee Goldsmith, Dykema Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, Lisle, IL; Jason Lawrence Pyrz, John A. Leja, Polsinelli Shughart, P.C., Chicago, IL.

For Alarm Detection Systems, Inc., D.M.C. Security Services, Inc., Illinois Alarm Services, Inc., SMG Security Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs: Bruce Lee Goldsmith, David Joel Bressler, Dykema Gossett Rooks Pitts PLLC, Lisle, IL; Michelle Kramer Schindler, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Chicago, IL.

For The Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District, Defendant: Martin K. LaPointe, LEAD ATTORNEY, Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., Chicago, IL; Susan Marie Troester, Attorney, Chicago, IL.

For Chicago Metropolitan Fire Protection, Inc., Defendant: Christopher W Carmichael, Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL; Martin G. Durkin, Peter Michael Friedman, Simon B. Auerbach, Holland & Knight LLC, Chicago, IL.

Page 860

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge.

Before this Court are memoranda and supplemental memoranda from plaintiffs Alarm Detection Systems, Inc. and other alarm companies (collectively " Alarm Companies" ) and defendants Lisle-Woodridge Fire District (" District" ) and Chicago Metropolitan Fire Prevention Company (" Chicago Metro" ),[1] addressing the only issue left to be resolved in this long-running litigation: Alarm Companies' entitlement to attorney's fees and expenses under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. § 1988) and the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § § 15, 26).[2] For the reasons set out below, Alarm Companies are held to be entitled to such attorney's fees and expenses, albeit at an amount somewhat lower than they have demanded.

Factual and Procedural Background

Although it would be tedious to relate at length the facts that gave rise to this litigation, not to mention the tortuous history of the proceedings before this Court and the Court of Appeals, a brief review of both is necessary to give some context to this final (it is devoutly wished) opinion. What follows is a factual summary condensed from one prior published opinion by this Court (799 F.Supp.2d 880 (N. D. Ill. 2011)) and two opinions by our Court of Appeals (672 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2012)

Page 861

(" ADT I" ) and 724 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (" ADT II" )).[3]

District is a municipal corporation organized under the Illinois Fire Protection District Act (" Illinois Act," 70 ILCS 705/1 to 705/24), with power to regulate fire safety within its bounds. Alarm Companies provide fire alarm monitoring services to private businesses and residences within the bounds of the District. In September 2009 District passed an ill-starred ordinance requiring all businesses and residences within its jurisdiction to obtain fire alarm monitoring services solely from District -- while at the same time District purchased certain alarm equipment solely from Chicago Metro. That ordinance, along with a letter sent to businesses declaring their contracts with Alarm Companies " null and void," were part of a scheme to increase District's revenue and set up an alarm-monitoring monopoly. After passage of the ordinance, the fire alarm monitoring regime operating within the Lisle-Woodridge District boundaries was less safe and less effective than the one that had previously prevailed. That drop in safety resulted in no small part from the fact that District had to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.