UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No. 20-60972-CIV-SINGHAL/HUNT

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

____________________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause. ECF 

No. 57. The Honorable Raag Singhal, United States District Judge, previously referred 

this Motion to the undersigned. See ECF No. 64; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); S.D. Fla. 

Mag. R. 1. Having reviewed the Motion, the response and reply thereto, as well as the 

argument of counsel at an October 16, 2020 hearing, this Court hereby ORDERS the 

Motion be DENIED for the following reasons. 

This is a purported class action lawsuit against security company ADT following 

alleged unauthorized access to the security systems of ADT’s clients. Plaintiff initially 

sought this Court’s invention regarding ADT’s communication of settlement offers to

potential plaintiffs, alleging such offers were being communicated without potential 

plaintiffs being adequately notified regarding legal options. This Court ultimately required 

ADT to use a Court-approved notice “when conducting any settlement discussions with 

potential class members.” ECF No. 33 at 5. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff now claims that ADT continued to communicate with potential plaintiffs 

orally without referencing the Court-approved notice, only providing the notice in an email 

after an initial agreement was made. Plaintiff contends this violates both the letter and 

the spirit of the order, and requests that this Court undo any settlement reached under 

these circumstances. 

The undersigned disagrees with Plaintiff’s reading of its previous Order. This 

Court’s intent with the required Notice was to ensure that anyone who enters into a 

settlement with ADT do so informed of the options available. Certainly, the best practice 

would have been to notify potential plaintiffs orally of the pending class action. However, 

so long as the notice was communicated prior to finalization of the settlement agreement, 

the intended purpose of the notice, that the potential plaintiff give informed consent to the 

settlement, has been fulfilled.

However, the undersigned does note that ADT’s actions represent the bare 

minimum of compliance with this Court’s previous order. Defendants have represented 

to this Court that they have stopped proactively discussing settlement orally with potential 

plaintiffs, which this Court encourages. Moving forward, any settlement discussions, oral 

or written, must notify potential plaintiffs of the existence of this class action, and the 

Notice must be included in any written settlement discussions. 

Both Parties request attorney’s fees be awarded on this issue. The undersigned 

finds a fee award to either Party inappropriate at this time. 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 57, is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on October 

23, 2020. 

_____________________________________

PATRICK M. HUNT

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

The Honorable Raag Singhal

All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 75 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 3 of 3