Adt Llc et al v. Capital Connect Inc et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment Partial

N.D. Tex.February 23, 2017

DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PAGE 1 (984.0160) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ADT LLC, and ADT US HOLDINGS, INC., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-02252-G § CAPITAL CONNECT, INC., POWER § HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, SECURITY § INVESTMENTS LLC, ALLIANCE § SECURITY INC., MAXIMUM SECURITY § ALARM, INC., JOHN LEE, JOHN BACKUS, § VICTOR VEGA, TREVOR MCALEES, § and ANTHONY BONARDI § § Defendants. § DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW, Defendant POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant in the above-entitled and numbered cause (hereinafter, “Movant”) and files this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 56 and LR 56.3, and would show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact concerning Plaintiffs’ claims against Movant set forth herein, and Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, as follows: I. SUMMARY OF THE MOTION 1.1 In this case, Plaintiffs have sued Movant – as well as four other alarm –service sale companies – for unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and Texas law, claiming that Movant’s alleged deceptive sales practices and false sales pitches have caused confusion in the marketplace relative to alarm monitoring services and resulted in current ADT Case 3:15-cv-02252-G-BH Document 216 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID 4916 DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PAGE 2 (984.0160) customers canceling their security contracts with ADT and purchasing the same services from ADT’s direct competitor, Monitronics. 1.2 Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages under the Lanham Act, including loss of goodwill and reputation, and at common law, as well as punitive damages under Texas law. 1.3 As an initial matter, there is no evidence that Plaintiff ADT US Holdings, Inc. (“ADT Holdings”), the parent company of Plaintiff ADT LLC (“ADT”), suffered any damages under either the Lanham Act or state law as a result of Movant’s alleged unfair sales tactics. ADT Holdings is merely the owner of the “ADT” trademark. 1.4 Additionally, ADT’s state law unfair competition claim fails as a matter of law because liability cannot be premised on the tort of “unfair competition” without a finding of an independent tort or other illegal conduct. 1.6 However, ADT lacks standing to sue Movant under the DTPA because, admittedly, ADT is a “seller” of services rather than a “consumer” of goods and services. Moreover, there is no evidence that Movant tortuously interfered with any ADT customers’ alarm services contracts. II. 2.1 Additionally, ADT’s claim for punitive damages fails as a matter of law because ADT has failed to plead or prove any basis for the recovery of punitive damages from Power Home Technologies, LLC under Texas law. 2.2 Further, there is no evidence that ADT has suffered any actual damages to its “goodwill and reputation” as a result of Movant’s alleged conduct. 2.3 Finally, all of ADT’s claims that arose prior to August 27, 2013 have been released so they are waived and Plaintiffs are estopped to assert same. Case 3:15-cv-02252-G-BH Document 216 Filed 02/23/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID 4917 DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PAGE 3 (984.0160) III. 3.1 Accordingly, there being no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding Plaintiffs’ claims set forth in this Motion, Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on said claims. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). 3.2 Pursuant to LR 56.3(a), each of the matters required for this Motion by FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) will be set forth in Defendant’ Brief in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Appendix, filed contemporaneously herewith. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC respectfully prays that this Honorable Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in its entirety, and for any and all other further relief to which Defendant may show itself justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM CLAY (Lead Counsel) State Bar No. 04332425 wclay@thewillislawgroup.com CHRISTOPHER J. HANLON State Bar No. 24065367 chanlon@thewillislawgroup.com THE WILLIS LAW GROUP 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 520 Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 736-9433 Facsimile: (214) 736-9994 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Case 3:15-cv-02252-G-BH Document 216 Filed 02/23/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID 4918 DEFENDANT POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT – PAGE 4 (984.0160) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 23, 2017, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. I hereby certify I have served all counsel of record electronically. William J. Clay Case 3:15-cv-02252-G-BH Document 216 Filed 02/23/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID 4919