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

Dist. Ct. did not err in issuing modified permanent injunction that precluded defendant from fully implementing 2009 ordinance (and subsequent 2012 ordinance) that required plaintiffs-private alarm companies to use certain aspects of fire alarm monitoring system set up by defendant. Record showed that wireless network set up by defendant did not comply with safety requirements contained in NFPA code and used inferior radio frequency, such that plaintiffs were entitled to use their own alarms and monitoring signals and to transmit said signals directly to entity for dispatching alarms to relevant responders. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in requiring defendant to direct dispatching entity to alter its software to increase response times to plaintiffs’ alarm signals. Ct., though, struck provisions of injunction that required defendant to issue refunds on money collected from commercial entities under 2009 ordinance and directed defendant to adopt current version of NFPA code.