4825-2884-0381

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

SHANA DOTY, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY 

SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability 

company, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 0:20-cv-60972-AHS 

DEFENDANT ADT LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Since the Court’s Order on June 22, 2020 (ECF No. 33), ADT sent every customer 

considering a settlement the exact written notice (the “Notice”) the Court required, allowing the 

customer to choose between directly resolving their dispute with ADT or retaining counsel and 

pursuing litigation. Ms. Doty’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (“Motion”) is an improper 

attempt to contort the Court’s Order into the more onerous obligations Plaintiff previously 

requested but the Court refused to require. 

Furthermore, the evidence Ms. Doty submitted does not support her requested relief; if 

anything, her declarations undermine her Motion because each declarant knew about the class 

action and made the informed decision not to settle and instead hired Ms. Doty’s lawyers. Indeed, 

one declarant admits ADT exceeded the Order’s requirement by informing her twice about the 

class action—once verbally, and again with the Notice. Adding further context to Plaintiff’s 

carefully-tailored declarations only bolsters that conclusion. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 19
2 

4825-2884-0381

 The Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because ADT fully complied with the Order. 

The extraordinary remedy of contempt that Plaintiff seeks is really a second run at the relief 

Plaintiff sought in earlier motion practice but the Court declined to include in the Order. The Court 

should not condone her effort to re-litigate settled issues and deny the Motion because (1) ADT 

complied with the requirement to send the Notice to customers considering settlement; (2) the 

Order is, at most, ambiguous as to exactly when sending the Notice was required, which dooms 

her arguments under controlling law; and (3) Plaintiff failed to demonstrate bad faith. 

ADT also requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay the fees and costs incurred in 

responding to this Motion, which would have been entirely unnecessary if Plaintiff’s counsel had 

properly conferred with ADT’s counsel as the Local Rules require. Plaintiff never mentioned any 

intent to file a motion and, more specifically, never discussed what relief she may seek. As 

demonstrated below, had she done so, she would have learned the relief she requests—invalidating 

releases entered without providing the Notice—is entirely non-existent. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

This lawsuit relates to an isolated series of events – all due to the independent, criminal 

conduct of a former ADT service technician in the Dallas, Texas area who abused his access to 

220 Dallas-area customer accounts. After being made aware of this conduct, ADT terminated him 

and reported him to law enforcement. ADT also launched a broad investigation to determine the 

scope of the technician’s activity and to ensure no other technicians had engaged in similar 

misconduct. 

In late April 2020, ADT then began the difficult, but vital, process of personally notifying 

and speaking with those affected customers to work toward regaining those individuals’ trust. 

ADT’s Chief Customer Officer, Jamie Haenggi, and a team of Customer Concierge 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 19
3 

4825-2884-0381

Representatives, led these efforts. See Declaration of Jamie Haenggi, ¶¶2-4 (Ex. A). The outreach 

focused on informing customers what happened, being transparent, assuring them ADT was there 

to help, and beginning to restore customer trust. Id. Settling cases was not the objective of the 

initial outreach. Id. Many customers appreciated ADT’s direct outreach, proactive efforts, and 

accepted ADT’s offer to make things right. Id. 

Over time, ADT did engage in settlement discussions with some customers and reached 

some settlements. Id. ¶¶5-10. Even well before this class action, however, some customers 

declined the opportunity to resolve their dispute directly with ADT and instead chose to retain 

counsel. Id. ADT never discouraged this and instead made clear ADT’s objectives would remain 

the same even if the customer retained a lawyer. For those customers represented by counsel, ADT 

took the same approach in trying to resolve those matters through the customers’ lawyers. Id. 

ADT’s own self-reporting of this incident also led to media attention informing the public 

at large what had happened.1 This spawned substantial Dallas-based attorney advertising and other 

media attention. The filing of this class action in mid-May 2020 generated another round of media 

attention and attorney advertising.2

1

See, e.g., LaVendrick Smith and Dom DiFurio, ADT employee had access to more than 

200 customers’ home security systems in the Dallas area, company says, THE DALLAS 

MORNING NEWS (April 23, 2020), https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2020/04/23/adtemployee-had-access-to-more-than-200-dfw-customers-home-security-systemscompany-says/. 

2

See, e.g., Suit: ADT employee spied on customers’ home security systems, ASSOCIATED 

PRESS (May 19, 2020), https://apnews.com/6e885b29749e2db50f8f628f212cb37c; Diana 

Zoga, Lawsuits: Former ADT Employee Accessed 220 NTX Customer Cameras Without 

Permission, NBCDFW (May 19, 2020), https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/lawsuitsformer-adt-employee-accessed-220-ntx-customer-cameras-without-permission/2372549/. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 19
4 

4825-2884-0381

A. Plaintiff’s Counsel Files Two Separate Class Actions Aimed at Avoiding the 

Arbitration Clauses in All But 27 of the 220 Impacted Customers’ Contracts. 

The same day Ms. Doty filed her case, her counsel also filed a separate class action before 

this Court based on the exact same conduct of ADT’s former installer. Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC, 

Case No. 0:20-cv-60971 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (“Preddy”). Of the 220 customers whose accounts are at 

issue, 193 of them have a contract with ADT containing the following provision agreeing to resolve 

disputes like this one in individual arbitration: 

ARBITRATION. ADT AND I AGREE THAT ANY AND ALL DISPUTES 

BETWEEN US SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THIS BINDING ARBITRATION 

AGREEMENT. . . . 

Contract at ¶ 7 (Ex. B). One hundred ninety-three customers likewise waived the right to pursue 

a class action against ADT: 

IF EITHER PARTY ELECTS TO ARBITRATE A DISPUTE, ADT AND I 

WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND TO OTHERWISE LITIGATE 

THE DISPUTE IN COURT. BY AGREEING TO ARBITRATE, THE PARTIES 

MAY ALSO WAIVE OTHER RIGHTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE 

AVAILABLE IN COURT. . . . . 

Id.

Ms. Doty seeks to represent the putative class of 27 customers who did not agree to resolve 

this dispute through individual arbitration. Ms. Preddy seeks to be the class representative for an 

unknown universe of people who may have been in the homes of customers impacted by this 

incident. Ms. Preddy is the adult daughter of ADT customer LaTasha Dorsey, whose contract with 

ADT contained an agreement to arbitrate. A motion to compel Ms. Preddy to arbitrate her dispute 

with ADT based on equitable estoppel is pending before the Court. See Preddy (ECF No. 38); 

Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 4 of 19
5 

4825-2884-0381

B. Plaintiff Endeavors to Shut Down ADT’s Ongoing Dialogue With Customers 

Immediately After Filing the Above Lawsuits. 

Two days after filing suit, Plaintiff sent a letter seeking control over ADT’s 

communications with its customers; this included pre-approval of settlement conversations with 

customers and forcing ADT to assign dollar values to claims when speaking with customers. See

May 20, 2020 Letter (seeking relief such as control and functional advertisement by telling 

customers the claims held a certain value) (ECF No. 8-2). ADT opposed this effort as an attempt 

to force ADT to advertise for the Plaintiff’s purported class action and infringe on its legal right to 

communicate with its customers. This disagreement led to motion practice before Magistrate Judge 

Hunt. See, e.g. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 8); ADT Response in Opposition 

(ECF No. 12); Plaintiff’s Reply in Support (ECF No. 18). 

At the hearing on the motion, Judge Hunt encouraged the parties to discuss a resolution of 

the motion. While ADT previously argued that the law only required it to provide verbal 

information so long as the communication was not misleading or coercive, it became apparent to 

ADT that such a resolution would lead inevitably to renewed motion practice since any post hoc

analysis of the customer communications by the parties would depend upon subjectivity, hearsay 

and inherently biased interpretations. Therefore, ADT proposed language it would send in writing 

via email before settling claims. See ADT’s Proposed Order (ECF No. 57-4) (representing “ADT 

will communicate the following information in writing”) (emphasis added). ADT’s submission 

made no representation about utilizing a verbal script in addition to the proposed emailed notice. 

Id. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 5 of 19
6 

4825-2884-0381

C. Plaintiff’s Proposed Relief Requested Both a Written and Verbal Script. 

Plaintiff requested both a written notice and a verbal script (as well other language that 

ADT contended was simply inappropriately advertising Plaintiff’s class action). Specifically, 

Plaintiff’s proposed order requested: 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Order (ECF No. 57-3). 

D. The Court Adopted ADT’s Proposal, with the Addition of a Hyperlink. 

The Court’s Order adopted ADT’s proposed order verbatim with one modification—

adding a hyperlink within the written Notice. Order, June 22, 2020 (ECF No. 33). In reaching 

that conclusion, the Court observed: “The undersigned finds that Defendant’s suggested language 

represents a good-faith effort to communicate the necessary information to prospective class 

members.” Id. With the addition of a hyperlink to ADT’s proposed notice, the Court concluded: 

The undersigned finds that with this addition, potential plaintiffs will easily have 

access to sufficient information to enable any potential class member to determine 

whether to accept the settlement offer, as well as the effect of settling and available 

avenues for pursuing a claim should the settlement offer not be accepted. It also 

addresses Plaintiff’s requests that any notice include a copy of Plaintiff’s complaint, 

identify Plaintiff’s counsel and provide their contact information, include a neutral 

description of the claims, and provide notice of Plaintiff’s evaluation of the claims, 

as all such information is contained within the linked complaint. As such, Plaintiff’s 

Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Defendant shall include a link to Plaintiff’s 

complaint in its notice to any prospective class member. Plaintiff’s Motion is 

otherwise DENIED. 

Id. at p. 5. The Court Order did not require—as Plaintiff’s order had proposed—that ADT read a 

verbal script and send a written Notice before settling; it also denied all other requested relief 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 6 of 19
7 

4825-2884-0381

beyond ADT’s proposed notice. Id. Nowhere does the Order dictate a precise moment when the 

Notice should be sent to a customer considering settlement. Id. 

E. ADT Sent the Required Notice, with a Hyperlink, to All Customers Considering 

Settlement, Allowing Them to Choose Between Settlement and Retaining Counsel. 

Since the Order, ADT has resolved claims with 13 customers and all 13 received the 

required Notice before accepting ADT’s settlement offer. Haenggi Decl. ¶¶11-17 (Ex. A). ADT 

also sent the Notice to another four customers including Ms. Richardson. Id. These customers 

chose not to settle. Id. Both before and after the Notice, some customers have retained lawyers 

while others have preferred working directly with ADT. Id. 

ADT ended its proactive customer outreach efforts in late July 2020. Id. ¶18. If customers 

initiate communications with ADT regarding concerns or a claim they may have, ADT remains 

committed to working with its customers to resolve concerns or discuss settlement, whether 

directly or through counsel for those that decided to retain lawyers. Id. 

1. ADT’s Communications with Declarant LaTonya Richardson. 

Before Ms. Richardson retained the lawyers in this case and submitted a declaration with 

this Motion, there were numerous email communications and phone calls between her and ADT 

customer care representatives from April 28, 2020 to July 1, 2020. Fauveir Decl., ¶¶ 4-8 (Ex. C). 

ADT spoke to Ms. Richardson on June 23, 2020 when Ms. Fauveir followed up again 

related to the above subject. Id. In that conversation, Ms. Richardson demanded a $10,000 

settlement because of the ADT technician’s conduct. Id. Ms. Fauveir was caught off guard by this 

demand and informed Ms. Richardson that she needed to review her account and get back to her 

about her demand. Id. 

On July 1, 2020, Ms. Fauveir contacted Ms. Richardson in response to her demand, 

informed her verbally that there were class actions filed; offered $5,000 as a settlement offer; 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 7 of 19
8 

4825-2884-0381

informed her the offer would be confirmed in writing; and told Ms. Richardson that if she wished 

to accept the offer, she needed to follow the instructions in the email. Id. This email text conveying 

the settlement offer has remained the same since April 2020, with the exception of the addition of 

the Notice. Id. Ms. Fauveir sent the offer and the Notice (which occupies over half the body of the 

email, not a footnote) immediately after speaking with Ms. Richardson. Id. As set forth below, Ms. 

Richardson politely declined the offer: 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 8 of 19
9 

4825-2884-0381

Id. 

2. ADT’s Communications with Ms. Minor. 

Ms. Fauveir also interacted with Christa Minor. Id. at 9-10. On June 26, 2020, Ms. Fauveir 

called Ms. Minor. Id. This conversation was more like the April 2020 conversations—which did 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 9 of 19
10 

4825-2884-0381

not involve any conversation about settlement—because ADT did not reach Ms. Minor when it 

previously called her in April 2020 to explain what happened with her account. Id. When Ms. 

Minor heard what had happened, she was very upset and the conversation focused on addressing 

her concerns, trying to comfort her, regaining her trust and making things right. Id. They did not 

discuss settlement on that call. Id. 

Ms. Fauveir called Ms. Minor again on June 30, 2020. Id. At that time, Ms. Fauveir may 

have explained that ADT would be willing to reimburse her all the money she had ever paid ADT. 

Id. If Ms. Minor had shown any interest in pursuing that conversation, Ms. Fauveir would have 

sent the Notice. Id. There were no additional communications. Id. 

3. ADT’s Communications with Ms. Wright. 

ADT Concierge Representative Sonja Gheen spoke with Freya Wright on June 24, 2020. 

Gheen Declaration, ¶16 (Ex. D). The purpose of the call was to see how she was doing and ask 

whether ADT could do anything else to make things right. Id. ¶¶17-9. Ms. Gheen informed her 

that ADT had offered some customers a refund of all money paid for the life of their account, and 

inquired whether Ms. Wright would be interested. Id. Ms. Wright said she was not interested in 

discussing this topic until she first spoke with her partner. Id. Ms. Wright informed Mr. Gheen that 

they would reach back out if they were interested in pursuing the subject further. Id. Ms. Gheen 

did not send the Notice because Ms. Wright was not interested in discussing settlement. Id. Ms. 

Wright told Ms. Gheen she would call ADT back if she was interested in discussing settlement but 

she never called back. Id. 

F. Plaintiff’s Failure to Confer with ADT Regarding the Requested Relief. 

In the correspondence Plaintiff attached to the Motion, ADT made clear (1) it was no longer 

contacting customers regarding settlement; and (2) it sent the required Notice to all customers, 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 10 of 19
11 

4825-2884-0381

including one of counsel’s clients, LaTonya Richardson. Eblen 7-28-2020 Email (ECF No. 57-6). 

After ADT emailed a copy of the Notice sent to Ms. Richardson and invited further discussion 

about any areas of disagreement, Plaintiff never responded. Two weeks later, she filed this Motion. 

As the emails show, throughout the process, counsel never mentioned any intention to seek relief 

from the Court through a motion, never explained what type of motion he intended to file, and 

never discussed what relief would be requested in the motion to facilitate an appropriate conferral 

process. 

ARGUMENT 

A. The Court Should Deny Plaintiff’s Motion Because They Have Not Shown a 

Violation of the Order, Much Less One by “Clear and Convincing Evidence”. 

The Court should only issue a show cause order where the movants prove by clear and 

convincing evidence, the alleged contemnors’ noncompliance with a prior court order. Thomas v. 

Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 814, 821 (11th Cir. 2010). Once the movants make a 

prima facie showing of a violation, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnors to produce evidence 

explaining their noncompliance at a show cause hearing. Id. Where the movant fails to show a 

violation of the Order by clear and convincing evidence, the burden never shifts to an opposing 

party to produce evidence explaining the circumstances of what happened. Id. 

Civil contempt “is a severe remedy,” and the burden on a litigant requesting that sanction 

is therefore “a high one.” In re Roth, 935 F.3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2019) (quoting Taggart v. 

Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1802 (2019)). In particular, a party seeking civil contempt for 

noncompliance with a court order must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: “(1) 

the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and unambiguous; and 

(3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” Ga. Power Co. v. N.L.R.B., 484 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 11 of 19
12 

4825-2884-0381

F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation and emphasis omitted); see also F.T.C. v. Leshin, 618 

F.3d 1221, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 

In determining whether the violated order is clear and unambiguous, a court must 

reasonably interpret the order and must “construe any ambiguities ... in a light favorable to the 

person charged with contempt.” All Web Leads, Inc. v. D'Amico, No. 18-80571-CV, 2018 WL 

6522167, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2018). In analyzing a respondent's diligence, courts “examine 

the defendant's actions and consider whether they are based on a good faith and reasonable 

interpretation of the court order.” Schmitz v. St. Regis Paper Co., 758 F.Supp. 922, 927 (S.D.N.Y. 

1991); S. Beach Suncare, Inc. v. Sea & Ski Corp., No. 98-1114-CIV-MORENO, 1999 WL 350458, 

at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 17, 1999); Taggart, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (civil contempt “should not be resorted 

to where there is [a] fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct”). The 

Order must specifically preclude the complained of conduct. S. Beach Suncare, Inc, 1999 WL 

350458, at *6 (noting the Court must find that its injunction was “clear and unambiguous,” before 

holding a party in contempt); United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 237 

(1975) (suggesting that “a party can only be held in contempt for behavior clearly prohibited by a 

court order within its four corners”). Indeed, where two reasonable interpretations of an Order 

exist, a party should not be held in contempt. Doe, 1-13 ex rel. Doe Sr. 1-13 v. Bush, 261 F.3d 

1037, 1061–62 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Finally, Defendants must act in “bad faith” to be held in contempt. See Alhassid v. 

Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 14-CV-20484-BB, 2018 WL 5118508, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 

2018). In Alhassid, for example, the Court found that Defendant (mortgage company) technically 

violated the Court’s prohibition on “sending a default letter until taxes are actually delinquent,” 

because it sent a default letter to Plaintiff, who was no longer delinquent on her taxes after paying 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 12 of 19
13 

4825-2884-0381

them after they were due. However, the Court found that Defendant did not act with “conscious 

doing of a wrong because of dishonest purpose or moral obliquity” in doing so, because Defendant 

believed Plaintiff was still delinquent on her taxes, as Plaintiff failed to notify Defendant that she 

had paid them. Id. Thus, contempt was inappropriate and the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a 

show cause order. 

1. Plaintiff Falls Woefully Short of “Clear and Convincing” Evidence of Non-Compliance 

with the Order. 

As established, ADT sent the Notice to customers considering settlement, including those 

customers who made an informed choice to resolve their claim rather than pursue litigation. And 

all 13 who settled after the Order received the Notice before choosing to settle. Plaintiff’s 

arguments to the contrary depend upon a false premise—that the Court required ADT to provide 

written and verbal notice, when Plaintiff is well aware the Court rejected her proposed order that 

attempted to impose both obligations. Order, June 22, 2020 (ECF No. 33). The Order instead 

required ADT to use its proposed written notice, with the addition of a hyperlink (a requirement 

consistent only with written communications). In reality, Plaintiff’s Motion is a second crack at 

obtaining the additional relief the Court already decided she was not entitled to, which the Court 

should again reject. 

How would ADT convey a verbal hyperlink to customers? The self-evident answer to that 

question further underscores the fallacy of Plaintiff’s argument. The Court Order added the 

hyperlink to the written Notice so that customers could merely click the link in the email and access 

the Doty complaint without having to hunt for it on PACER or other search engines. Order, June 

22, 2020, p. 5 (“Defendant must also provide a link so that prospective class members can freely 

access the complaint should they so choose.”). Plaintiff’s contention that the Order required the 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 13 of 19
14 

4825-2884-0381

Notice to also be used as a verbatim verbal script is unreasonable considering the operation and 

purpose of the Court mandated hyperlink. 

 Finally, that Plaintiff devoted significant time in the Motion toward rehashing several 

other arguments the Order already rejected corroborates that her real goal is to take a second bite 

at the apple. As with her argument for a verbal script, Plaintiff again belabors her inaccurate belief 

that ADT’s settlement offers to customers were too low. Before the Order, Plaintiff argued 

vehemently that the Court should require ADT to make a statement to customers regarding the 

damage valuations, and included the following verbiage in her proposed order to the Court: “The 

attorneys representing the consumer in the Doty case believe that the claims have significant value 

that far exceeds what ADT is offering in settlements.” Plaintiff’s Proposed Order, (ECF No. 57-

3). As with her renewed effort for a verbal script, however, the Court declined Plaintiff’s proposed 

statement, instead endorsing the following statement in the Order: “Litigation is inherently 

unpredictable and can result in greater or less recovery than the settlement offer or no recovery at 

all.” Order, June 22. 2020, p. 4, n. 2. Her attempt to relitigate multiple issues reveals her Motion’s 

true objectives; and it confirms that her desired reading of the Order is incorrect. 

Because the Motion depends upon an intentionally inaccurate reading of the Order, and 

because ADT complied with the actual Order, the Court should deny the Motion. 

2. At Most, Plaintiff Can Show an Ambiguity in the Order, Which Requires the Denial of 

Her Motion. 

Even affording Plaintiff’s declarations the most generous of inferences (and the law 

requires just the opposite), the declarations only support an argument that, at most, the Order is 

ambiguous. That conclusion is also fatal to her Motion. Leshin, 618 F.3d at 1232. 

As discussed above, because there is no requirement for verbal and written notice to 

customers, Plaintiff’s contrary arguments are unreasonable and, hence, do not even create an 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 14 of 19
15 

4825-2884-0381

ambiguity. Her other arguments depend upon accepting her desired interpretation of precisely 

when the Order required ADT to send the Notice. But there is no explicit mandate dictating the 

precise moment when ADT had to send the Notice. Read in proper context—with an appreciation 

for the purpose behind the Notice—it is clear that ADT had to provide Notice before a customer 

decided whether to settle, which is exactly what ADT did.3

The Notice’s objective was to provide customers sufficient information to exercise their 

right to choose whether to settle directly with ADT or seek representation. Order, p. 4 (“any 

potential plaintiffs must give informed consent to settle”). That always occurred. As the Court 

explained, with ADT’s Notice, customers considering settlement “will easily have access to 

sufficient information to enable any potential class member to determine whether to accept the 

settlement offer, as well as the effect of settling and available avenues for pursuing a claim should 

the settlement offer not be accepted.” Id. p. 5 (emphasis added). Stated differently, before the 

customer chose whether to settle and forego her right to pursue other recourses, she needed the 

Notice to provide informed consent. Because that always happened, the Notice served the letter 

and spirit of the Order. 

 Plaintiff’s arguments would suggest, at most, an ambiguity in the Order; therefore, she has 

failed to meet her burden for this Court to enter a show-cause order. See All Web Leads, Inc., 2018 

WL 6522167, at *2. 

3 The accusation that ADT obtained verbal settlements and then sent the Notice as an 

afterthought is false and unsupported. Plaintiff’s own declarant Ms. Richardson proves as 

much. She made the first demand, ADT countered and sent the Notice explaining how to 

accept and she declined the offer. Moreover, ADT’s declarations explain that the email 

language required after entry of the Court’s Order was used throughout the process and the 

customers knew that in order to accept the offer they had to follow the process set forth in 

the email. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 15 of 19
16 

4825-2884-0381

3. ADT’s Customer Concierge Representatives Did Not Act in Bad Faith. 

Plaintiff’s Motion also fails to show bad faith. Alhassid, 2018 WL 5118508, at *3. As 

ADT’s declarations demonstrate, Plaintiff’s characterizations of ADT’s customer outreach efforts 

are hyperbolic advocacy unsupported by actual evidence. The purpose of ADT’s communications 

were to be transparent, provide information, restore trust and make things right. Where ADT 

engaged in settlement conversations, it did so fairly and openly. Throughout the process some 

customers have chosen to retain counsel and some have preferred to deal directly with ADT. That 

customers have made divergent choices between settling, retaining Texas lawyers to pursue claims 

individually or joining these cases demonstrates they have continually exercised freewill based 

upon informed consent. Nothing in the Motion refutes that conclusion. 

If anything, Ms. Doty’s submissions support the opposite of bad faith. In particular, Ms. 

Richardson received more information that the Notice required—verbal notice during a call and a 

follow-up email with the Notice. She used this information to inform ADT that “she was going a 

different direction.” That evidence undermines Plaintiff’s Motion, and certainly does not support 

the severe remedy of contempt by clear and convincing evidence. 

The Wright and Minor declarations also do not show bad faith. Ms. Wright told ADT she 

was not interested in discussing settlement until she met with her partner. She then never got back 

to ADT and, obviously, was aware of the class actions because she made the informed decision to 

sign up as a client with the lawyers in this case. 

Ms. Minor’s experience was similar. She first spoke with ADT about the details of what 

happened, not settlement. In a second conversation, she spoke generally about whether she would 

be interested in a refund of money paid to ADT. Sometime after those conversations, Ms. Minor 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 16 of 19
17 

4825-2884-0381

decided to retain the lawyers in this case. Nothing about these conversations suggests bad faith by 

ADT’s employees, providing another basis to deny the Motion. 

B. Because Plaintiff Failed to Properly Confer Under the Local Rules, The Court 

Should Award ADT Fees and Costs. 

The only specific remedy Plaintiff seeks is the invalidation of releases obtained where the 

Notice was not provided. Had Plaintiff properly conferred before filing this Motion (by advising 

defense counsel of the motion she intend to file and the relief she was seeking – as the Local Rules 

contemplate), she would have learned there are no such releases. Instead, after ADT’s counsel sent 

Plaintiff’s counsel the Richardson Notice, all communication ceased for two weeks until Plaintiff 

filed this Motion. Not only is that not a proper conferral under the Local Rules, warranting an 

award of fees and costs,4 Plaintiff’s entire Motion is misplaced because the only specific relief 

requested is a non-existent remedy. 

Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires counsel to confer with all parties or non-parties who may be 

affected by the relief sought in the motion. LR 7.1(a)(3) (requiring parties to confer “in a good 

faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion.”) (emphasis supplied). 

This rule provides that failure to comply “may be cause” to “grant or deny the motion and impose 

on counsel an appropriate sanction,” which “may include an order to pay the amount of the 

reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation.” Id. 

Strict compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) is very important. Marler v. U-Store-It Mini 

Warehouse Co., No. 09-60613-CIV, 2011 WL 1430262, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2011). The nonmoving party does not always oppose relief sought by the moving party. Id. Compliance with this 

rule may save the parties the time and costs associated with filing and responding to a motion. 

4 For the reasons discussed throughout this opposition, ulterior motives of trying to modify 

the Order and garner attention to recruit class members were the likely drivers behind this 

filing. That, too, supports awarding fees and costs. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 17 of 19
18 

4825-2884-0381

Club Madonna, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, No. 1323762, 2015 WL 5559894, at *9 (S.D. Fla. 

Sept. 22, 2015). 

As the correspondence Plaintiff attached to her Motion demonstrates, there was no dialogue 

about an intent to file a motion, what type of motion would be filed and what relief Plaintiff 

intended to seek in the motion. Instead, the communication trail ended after ADT provided a copy 

of the Notice Ms. Richardson received, leaving the impression that the issue had been resolved. 

And ADT’s first notice of the fact that a Motion would be filed, or the relief sought, was the filing 

of the Motion itself. Such conduct does not comply with the Local Rules and the Court should 

award ADT fees and costs incurred in responding to this Motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court should deny the Motion and award ADT its fees and costs. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 18 of 19
19 

4825-2884-0381

Dated August 26, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

Jennifer A. McLoone_______________________ 

Alfred J. Saikali (Florida Bar No. 178195) 

E-Mail: asaikali@shb.com

Jennifer A. McLoone (Florida Bar No. 029234) 

E-Mail: jmcloone@shb.com 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

Citigroup Center, Suite 3200

201 South Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, Florida 33131 

T: (305) 358-5171 

-andCharles C. Eblen (pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: ceblen@shb.com

Jason R. Scott (pro hac vice) 

E-Mail: jscott@shb.com

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

2555 Grand Boulevard 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

T: (816) 474-6550 

Counsel for ADT LLC 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 19 of 19