An interesting case arose in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

In an interesting case regarding prohibited ordinances, plaintiffs operated a fleet of standalone trailers that were specially constructed to display signs or banners, which the company used to advertise its burglary alarm services, as well as other products and political causes.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recently ordered the preliminary certification of a conditional class action settlement involving various California wage and hours laws.

A recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire did not involve an alarm company, but relied on an alarm company decision in granting a motion for summary judgment.

A recent case in New York again tested the importance of the limitation of liability provision in an alarm contract. 

In Michigan, a group of plaintiffs filed an action against the defendant security company claiming that the security company violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay the plaintiffs time and a half for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The defendant security company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

A question that frequently arises is the rights of a tenant against an alarm company where the tenant has no agreement with the alarm company but the alarm company provides service pursuant to an agreement with the landlord.

A recent case, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, involved an emergency medical response service.

A recent case decided in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada involved a residential security system.

A suit was recently filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing a number of alarm companies of infringing on a patent described as “303 patent.”