Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-05149/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-05149-53/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SECURITY ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET 

AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 11-cv-05149-YGR 

ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR ORDERS 

TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 377, 391 

Plaintiff ADT Security Services, Inc. (“ADT”) filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause 

regarding alleged contempt by defendant Security One International Inc. (“Security One”). (Dkt. 

No. 377.) The Court heard argument on June 7, 2016.1 Subsequent to the hearing, the parties 

submitted requests for additional discovery in connection with the motion. (Dkt. No. 399, 401.) 

The Court then ordered discovery on and further briefing concerning the alleged contempt by 

Security One. (Dkt. No. 403.) The parties completed supplemental briefing based on this 

additional discovery on August 19, 2016. 

The Court, having thoroughly considered the briefing, arguments, and evidence submitted 

by the parties, sets forth its preliminary findings and ORDERS a further scheduling conference as 

stated herein. 

 1

 Defendant Security One filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause regarding alleged 

contempt by ADT, on which the Court heard argument June 7, 2016, as well. Subsequent to the 

hearing, in their June 15, 2016 filing, Security One indicated that, based upon ADT’s 

supplemental filing on May 26, 2016, Security One no longer seeks additional discovery on the 

subject of its contempt allegations, but rests on its papers and requests only an award of attorneys’ 

fees and an admonishment of ADT for its conduct. (See Dkt. No. 401 at n.2.) 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 11
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

I. BACKGROUND

A. Proceedings Leading to Permanent Injunction 

This action was originally filed October 20, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) On November 17, 2011, 

Judge Ware entered the parties’ Agreed Preliminary Injunction (“Preliminary Injunction”) as an 

Order of the Court, enjoining the Defendants from engaging in certain of the alleged unfair and 

deceptive business practices. (See Dkt. No. 32.) In pertinent part, the Preliminary Injunction 

provided: 

Defendants, their agents, servants, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, and 

assigns are PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED pending further Order of this Court, 

from: .... (h) Making any material false statement of fact regarding ADT 

including, but not limited to, function, performance, capabilities, specifications, 

features, requirements, reliability, availability, origin, sponsorship, approval, or 

design of any ADT equipment, alarm system, sales, or service. 

(Id.) The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned in January of 2012. 

On September 14, 2012, ADT filed a Motion for Contempt Against Security One 

International, Inc. and Claudio Hand (Dkt. No. 118). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on 

December 18, 2012, and the parties presented oral argument on December 19, 2012. 

On January 3, 2013, the Court entered an order denying the motion for contempt and 

modifying the preliminary injunction to provide: 

1. Defendants, their agents, independent contractors, servants, employees, 

officers, directors, and telemarketers are prohibited from making any false 

representation to any ADT customer while soliciting the customer’s business, 

including without limitation, as it relates to their relationship and/or affiliation 

with the manufacturer of the customer’s alarm system equipment (i.e. General 

Electric or Honeywell). 

2. To the extent that defendants Scellusaleads and Pure Clar have not submitted to 

the jurisdiction of this Court, Security One, Hand, their employees, servants, 

officers, directors, related companies, predecessor/successor companies, affiliates, 

subsidiaries, and/or any other person or entity involved in the generation of sales 

leads on behalf of Security One shall cease immediately from using Scellusaleads 

and Pure Clar, their employees, officers, directors, related companies, 

predecessor/successor companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries for purposes of 

generating sales leads for Security One until Security One can satisfy the Court 

that sufficient safeguards are in place to verify compliance with this Order. 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 11
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

On June 17, 2013, ADT filed a motion for contempt of the January 3, Order (Dkt. No. 

212). The Court advanced the trial date in the action to consider the merits and the alleged 

contempt in proceedings that commenced September 16, 2013. 

At the conclusion of that trial, the case settled and the parties filed a motion for entry of an 

agreed permanent injunction. (Dkt. No. 367, Permanent Injunction.) The Permanent Injunction, 

entered October 1, 2013, provided that Security One was prohibited, in pertinent part, from: 

(1)... making the following false representations or engaging in the following 

conduct: 

*** 

(j) Making any false representation to any ADT customer while soliciting 

the customer’s business, including without limitation, as it relates to their 

relationship and/or affiliation with the manufacturer of the customer’s alarm 

system equipment (i.e. General Electric or Honeywell) 

(Id. at ECF p. 10, emphasis in original.) 

C. Current Contempt Proceedings 

ADT now alleges that Security One has continued to mislead ADT customers with 

telemarketer pitches telling them that (i) the caller is “with GE,” the “company that made your 

alarm system,” (ii) the caller “can see you are now paying $[amount] per month,” and (iii) the 

customer was “placed” with ADT when the alarm system was purchased, leading customers to 

believe that the caller’s company has a current relationship with the customer concerning the 

alarm system. ADT contends that the Security One telemarketers’ statements, and the script from 

which they are working when they made the statements, violated paragraph 1(j) of the Permanent 

Injunction because they created the false impression that the caller represented the company that 

provided their alarm equipment. ADT contends that, in fact, Security One had no authorization to 

represent that it was a “dealer of GE” or a “GE Authorized dealer,” according to the owner of the 

GE Security business that sells GE equipment, UTC Fire & Security (“UTC”). ADT argues that 

Security One cannot inoculate itself from contempt by simply saying that it reminded its overseas 

telemarketers to follow the standard script because the script itself is a violation of the Permanent 

Injunction. ADT contends that taking “all reasonable steps” to obtain compliance would have 

included removing any reference to GE in the script in 2013, not just in January 2016 after UTC 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 11
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

ordered Security One to cease any reference to GE Security. 

In its own motion for contempt, Security One counters that ADT improperly disclosed 

confidential material in violation of the protective order entered by this Court on March 8, 2012 

(Dkt. No. 63), both by filing documents with the Court and by sharing certain protected material 

with UTC, including six call transcripts marked “CONFIDENTIAL,” in addition to discussions of 

protected material with UTC’s counsel. Security One contends that the latter disclosures resulted 

in UTC terminating Security One’s status as an authorized GE dealer. Security One contends that 

ADT’s disregard of the Court’s protective order, made at the same time that ADT demands 

confidential documents from Security One under the authority of the Permanent Injunction, puts 

Security One in the untenable position of having to choose between compliance with the 

injunction or withholding confidential information that ADT might otherwise disclose improperly. 

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS 

On a motion for contempt, the moving party has the burden of showing, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that the alleged contemnor violated a specific and definite order of the court. 

See Labor/Cmty. Strategy Ctr. v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 

(9th Cir. 2009); Stone v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1992), as 

amended on denial of reh’g (Aug. 25, 1992) (citing Balla v. Idaho St. Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 

461, 466 (9th Cir.1989)). If that moving burden is met, the alleged contemnor then has the burden 

to demonstrate why it was unable to comply. Id.; Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th 

Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984). The alleged contemnor must show it took every 

reasonable step to comply. Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 n. 9. 

Once a party has consented to a permanent injunction barring further violations of the 

Lanham Act, it occupies “a position less advantageous than that of an innocent party.” Wolfard 

Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th Cir. 1997), quoting Wella Corp. v. Wella 

Graphics, Inc., 37 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 1994). “An infringer must keep a fair distance from the 

‘margin line’” and has “a duty to stay well away from” infringing conduct. Wolfard 

Glassblowing, 118 F.3d at 1320, citing Plough, Inc. v. Kreis Labs., 314 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir. 

1963); accord, e.g., Rebis v. Universal CAD Consultants, Inc., No. C-96-4201 SC, 1998 WL 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 4 of 11
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

470475, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 1998), aff’d, 189 F.3d 474 (9th Cir. 1999). The Ninth Circuit 

concluded that a party enjoined by consent from further Lanham Act violations “should have its 

conduct carefully scrutinized in future use and should not be allowed to claim the same leniency 

accorded a good faith user.” Wolfard Glassblowing, 118 F.3d at 1320 (quoting 5 MCCARTHY ON 

TRADEMARKS § 30.21). 

“[A] district court ordinarily should not impose contempt sanctions solely on the basis of 

affidavits;” rather a court should allow the alleged contemnor an evidentiary hearing. Peterson v. 

Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998). However, no evidentiary hearing is 

warranted where the evidence submitted in support of the motion for an order to show cause does 

not make out at least a prima facie showing of contempt of this Court’s Order. 

III. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. UTC and GE Security Dealer Status 

1. UTC Commercial Operations Leader Angie Gomez declared that UTC is a 

manufacturer of residential and commercial intrusion products which sells its products to 

distributors and dealers who can then resell the products to another business or to an end-user 

customer. (Dkt. No. 389-1, Exh. 1, Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 1, 2.)2 

2. UTC acquired GE Security in March of 2010 and was granted a limited license to 

continue to use the GE Security trademarks in connection with the sale of GE Security-branded 

equipment. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.) 

GE Security had agreements with some independent retailers granting them a limited 

license to use GE marks and brands and to identify themselves as “[Company Name], An 

Authorized GE Security Dealer.” (Id. ¶ 6.) The agreements strictly regulated the use of the GE 

trademarks, and prohibited dealers from identifying themselves as “General Electric” or “GE.” 

(Id. at ¶ 7.) 

 2

 ADT provided in its moving papers the Declaration of Angie Gomez, the Commercial 

Operations Leader to UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., referred to herein as UTC. 

(Gomez Decl. ¶ 1.) The declaration is signed under penalty of perjury, but undated. Security One 

has not objected to the Court’s consideration of the declaration. 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 5 of 11
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Since acquiring GE Security in 2010, UTC maintained the right to provide a limited 

license to its dealers who purchase products, directly or through distribution, to refer to themselves 

as authorized GE Security dealers. (Vanis Decl., Dkt. No. 408-9, Exh. 1 [“Troise Depo.”] at 10.)3

UTC’s manufacture of GE-branded home security products was phased out over time and 

ceased in June of 2016. (Id. at 11.) 

Many authorized GE Security dealers primarily sold monitoring services rather than GEbranded equipment. (Id. at 16-17.) UTC was aware that many of its authorized GE Security 

dealers sold monitoring services and that sometimes the only thing they were selling to the 

customer was monitoring services rather than the equipment. (Id. at 17.) 

UTC’s agreements with authorized GE Security dealers were, for the most part, not 

exclusive, i.e. they did not require that they sell only GE Security-branded equipment. (Id. at 18.) 

B. Security One’s Relationship Status as an Authorized GE Security Dealer 

Security One is an independent retailer that entered into a contract with GE Security on or 

about January 7, 2010. That agreement was assumed by UTC for the remainder of the contract 

term, which expired December 21, 2010. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 9.)4 

UTC and Security One continued to operate under the terms of the expired agreement. (Id. 

¶ 10.) 

In 2012, UTC manager Matt Schaberg received inquiries from Security One about 

renewing its authorized dealer relationship through an agreement with UTC. The agreement was 

never finalized, but in 2013 Schaberg confirmed by letter that Security One was still permitted to 

identify itself as a “GE Authorized Dealer” under the terms of the prior agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.) 

Schaberg’s letter stated that “Security One and Interlogix [UTC] have continued to operate 

under terms of the expired agreement pending approval of its 2013 application.” (Troise Depo. at 

 3

 On July 28, 2016, the parties deposed Emanuel A. Troise, III, UTC’s designated 

corporate representative and Senior Director of Legal Affairs. 

4

 The Court notes that neither party provided a copy of either the expired 2010 agreement 

in connection with these contempt proceedings, but rather rely on others’ descriptions and 

interpretations of that agreement. However, the 2010 agreement appears in the record at Docket 

No. 218. 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 6 of 11
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

32.; Decl. of John O’Bryan, Dkt. No. 411-7, Exh. I [exhibits to Troise Depo.].) Troise was not 

aware of any other action with respect to the 2013 application, or whether there was a subsequent 

application or other efforts to renew the agreement by Security One. (Id. at 33.) 

The 2010 agreement provides, at section 5(b): 

...provided that Dealer satisfies and continues to satisfy all requirements of this 

Agreement, Dealer is granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and 

revocable license during the term of this Agreement to use the GE Security Marks 

in advertising, sales promotion and marketing materials, signs, displays, stickers, 

vehicle markings, and other marketing materials, but only in connection with 

Dealer’s authorized resale of Products. Dealer shall not use the GE Security 

Marks in its corporate or business name, or within its telephone greeting, 

letterhead, stationery, identification badges, telemarketing scripts or direct 

marketing materials, or promotional materials, provided that Dealer may utilize 

(orally or in written form) the following language at its sole discretion: “An 

Authorized GE Security Dealer.” 

(Dkt. No. 218, Dealer Agreement between GE Security and Security One, dated January 7, 2010, 

italics in original, bold supplied.) 

Troise testified that the 2010 agreement meant that “certain approved resellers can use a 

manufacturer’s logos and brands in restricted ways.” (Troise Depo. at 35.) Troise further testified 

that the terms of the agreement meant that contracting parties could refer to themselves as an: 

 “authorized dealer of GE Security products;” 

 “authorized GE Security dealer;” or 

 “authorized GE dealer;” 

but would not be able to themselves outside of the scope of that authorized dealer identification, 

such as by referring to themselves as: 

 GE or an affiliate of GE; 

 some combination of their own name with the GE brand; or 

 “a dealer of GE” or “with GE.” 

(Id. at 35-36; see also Gomez Decl. ¶ 13 [Security One has never had the right to identify itself as 

GE, or to claim to be “with GE,” or to suggest any affiliation with General Electric, Inc.].) Thus, 

“a statement saying they’re a dealer of GE, if that was requested for us to review, we would have 

objected to it” and “with GE” would not have been permitted. (Troise Depo. at 38.) 

According to Troise, the terms of the agreement conveyed the use of the GE brand only in 

connection with the sale of GE Security-branded security equipment. (Id. at 38-39.) Troise stated 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 7 of 11
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

that the agreement meant that “[i]f the sale solely related to monitoring – monitoring services, no, 

they would – they would not be permitted, technically, under the license to refer to themselves if 

there’s no connection with GE Security-branded products.” (Id. at 41:4-8.) 

With respect to use of the GE Security brand in efforts to sell monitoring services, Troise 

stated that, 

the issue is that in certain cases, GE-branded equipment may be sold or it may be, 

in many cases, my understanding is, given away for free. So, essentially, if the 

offer is to give away equipment along with monitoring services, if that equipment 

is not GE-branded equipment, then it would be inappropriate. If we're using GEbranded equipment and design -- and -- in calls designed to promote monitoring 

services. [interruption in deposition] I--” 

(Id. at 45.) The end of the witness’s answer appears to have been cut off and not drawn out 

through follow-up questioning. It suggests that calls to promote monitoring on GE-branded 

equipment would be permissible, but the record is inconclusive on that point. However, Troise 

later testified that “[i]t would be our understanding that an authorized GE Security dealer would 

only use the GE brand in connection with the sale of GE-branded product.” (Id. at 51.) 

In October 2013, UTC requested Security One send to UTC copies of its telemarketing 

scripts in connection with a question about whether Security One was using the GE terminology 

appropriately. (Id. at 19.) Security One provided a sales script and a “managers Q and A 

confirmation script” on October 30, 2013. (Id. at 24-25.) UTC reviewed the scripts with reference 

to GE usage. (Id. at 19-20.) Troise testified that he was not aware of any objections to the scripts, 

and that the script’s reference to Security One as an authorized GE Security dealer was permitted 

by the UTC Dealer Agreement and Brand Expression Guidelines. (Id. at 25.) 

From mid-2013 until at least February 2016, Security One continued to be an authorized 

GE Security dealer, subject to the terms of the written agreement, despite its expiration, based 

upon a letter from UTC’s Matt Schaberg to Security One. (Id. at 14.) Security One continued to 

be entitled to hold itself out to the public as an authorized GE Security dealer, pursuant to the 

terms of the written agreement. (Id. at 14-15.) 

Between November 2013 and February 2016, there were no additional communications 

from UTC to Security One about its dealer status. (Troise Depo. at 20-21.) Troise was not aware 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 8 of 11
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

of whether Security One had ever followed up to ask for a new written contract after the fall of 

2013. (Troise Depo. at 54.) 

UTC was aware that, throughout the period of mid-2013 through February 2016, Security 

One was primarily selling security monitoring services. (Troise Depo. at 16 [“Um, yes. I am 

aware that Security One was engaged in the selling of monitoring services, yes.”].) 

As of March 8, 2016, UTC informed Security One that it was no longer authorized to hold 

itself out as an “Authorized GE Security Dealer” or to use any of GE’s brands or marks in its 

advertising. (Gomez Decl. ¶ 16; Troise Depo. at 21-22.) Until Security One received that letter, it 

was an authorized GE Security dealer, and was entitled to hold itself out to consumers as an 

authorized GE Security dealer, subject to the restrictions of the license contained in the 2010 

written agreement. (Troise Depo. at 22.) 

C. Telemarketing Scripts Produced By Security One 

ADT submitted a telemarketing script produced by Security One to ADT on October 27, 

2016 (Exhibit 4 to its Motion for OSC, Dkt. No. 377-1, filed under seal).5 The script produced by 

Security One says, in pertinent part, “I’m calling as an authorized GE Security Dealer, Security 

One. GE is a manufacturer of home security systems. The reason why I’m calling is because 

when you first had your alarm system installed you were placed with a monitoring company. The 

rate you are paying is about $.... a month.... We are doing a courtesy call to all customers that 

have a security system to inform them that Security One is providing an upgraded monitoring 

service at a lower rate than what you are currently paying....” (Id.) 

ADT also submitted additional telemarketing scripts. (Vanis Decl., Dkt. 408-9, Exh. 2 and 

 5 See Order at Dkt. No. 387 regarding sealing documents at Dkt. No. 377, and public 

versions of documents at Dkt. No. 389. Although the Court ordered certain documents sealed in 

whole or in part, including the entirety of the call script submitted with ADT’s motion, in advance 

of the hearing and consideration of these motions, it now finds that the portions cited herein 

should be unsealed as the public policies favoring disclosure of the factual record upon which 

decisions are based outweigh the reasons offered for sealing those documents. See Pintos v. 

Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court therefore ORDERS that 

the documents previously filed under seal at Docket No. 377 that were not previously filed on the 

public docket at Docket No. 389—specifically the portions of the telemarketing script at Exh. 4 

cited herein and an unredacted copy of ADT’s opening brief—shall be filed on the public docket 

forthwith. 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 9 of 11
10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

3.) Those scripts included the language stating, “I’m calling from Security One an Authorized GE 

Security Dealer. GE is the manufacturer of your home security system,” or simply “Hi, I’m 

calling from Security One a GE Security Authorized Dealer.” (Vanis Decl., Exhs. 2, 3.) One 

script added, “this has nothing to do with your current provider and your current provider is still in 

business.” (Exh. 3, emphasis in original omitted.) Likewise, the manager’s confirmation script 

added, “I like to confirm each and every appointment to make sure everything is CRYSTAL 

CLEAR and let you know that we are not affiliated with your current monitoring company and 

your current company IS still in business.” (Vanis Decl., Exh. 3 at 2.) 

The Court finds, based on its review of the totality of the evidence, that the telemarketing 

scripts do not provide clear and convincing evidence of contempt of the Permanent Injunction by 

Security One. The scripts stay within the confines of the agreement that originated with GE 

Security and was then assumed by UTC. Some of the testimony offered raises doubts about 

whether UTC believed the agreement entitled Security One to use its status as “an authorized GE 

Security dealer” in sales pitches aimed solely at selling monitoring services. However, the Court 

cannot find, on this record, clear and convincing evidence that the agreement precluded, and 

Security One was on notice that it precluded, using its “authorized GE Security dealer” status in 

such circumstances. 

D. Declarations and Call Transcripts Submitted By ADT 

The Court finds that two of the declarations submitted by ADT – those of Larry Biscayart 

and Suzanne Karas—as well as four of the six call transcripts (SECONE00001, 000002, 000003, 

000004) provide a sufficient showing of possible contempt of the Permanent Injunction to warrant 

an evidentiary hearing. Biscayart’s declaration indicates that a Security One employee may have 

misrepresented himself as being employed by ADT. The other declaration and transcripts 

identified above indicate that Security One’s telemarketers made statements misrepresenting their 

affiliation as being with “GE” rather than “GE Security.” 

IV. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

The Court therefore ORDERS that this case is SET for a scheduling conference on Monday, 

November 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to discuss the scope of an evidentiary hearing regarding 

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 10 of 11
11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

contempt of this Court’s October 1, 2013 Permanent Injunction in light of those preliminary 

findings. 

Central to the Court’s inquiry on the merits will be: (1) how often Security One’s agents 

departed from the telemarketing scripts provided; and (2) how material were those deviations in 

terms of any damages ADT claims to have sustained as a result. 

The parties should also be prepared to discuss what evidence they intend to present at an 

evidentiary hearing on the matters remaining at issue and a proposed schedule. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 19, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-05149-YGR Document 412 Filed 10/19/16 Page 11 of 11