In a recent case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, an interesting question arose as to whether the defendant, the company providing security, could be responsible for a decrease in value of the property because of a loss that the plaintiff contended was the fault of the security company.
An interesting case arose in the State of Florida involving the sale of assets of a security alarm company who was enjoined and prohibited from using certain sales profits.
A recent case decided in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is worth discussing. The defendant produces, markets and sells medical alert systems.
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.
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.
RSS
