UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-60972-CIV-SINGHAL

SHANA DOTY, individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES and

TELESFORO AVILES,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon ADT, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Motion 

to Deny Class Certification (DE [95]). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. For 

the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.

In this action, Plaintiff Shana Doty seeks relief for herself and a putative class of 

ADT customers who installed the ADT Pulse home security system. She alleges the

system contained a vulnerability that enabled unauthorized persons to access customers’ 

systems and view the videos taken by cameras installed in customers’ homes. Plaintiff 

alleges that ADT’s installer, Defendant Telesforo Aviles, viewed videos of her in her 

home. She seeks relief on behalf of all ADT Pulse customers in the United States whose 

security systems were remotely accessed by an employee or agent of ADT without 

authorization from the customer and a sub-class of all ADT Pulse customers in the United 

States whose security systems were remotely accessed by Telesforo Aviles without 

authorization from the customer. (DE [47]). 

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2021 Page 1 of 3
2

The parties submitted a Joint Scheduling Report (DE [88]) in which ADT noted that 

it wished “to preserve its right to file a Motion to Deny Class Certification at or before the 

time that Plaintiff moves for class certification.” The Court entered a Scheduling Order 

(DE [90]) which set a deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification and noted that 

“Defendant may raise all grounds for denying class certification in its response to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class and may move for leave to file a sur-reply, if necessary.”

Now Defendant has renewed its request for leave to file a Motion to Deny Class 

Certification.

“District courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets. This 

authority includes broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before 

them.” Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing 

Canada v. Mathews, 449 F.2d 253, 255 (5th Cir.1971); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor 

Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir.1997)). This discretion includes the ability to set 

filing deadlines. 

In a class action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the numerosity, 

commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) as well as “through 

evidentiary proof at least one of the provisions of Rule 23(b).” Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,

569 U.S. 27, 34 (2013). The Court is well-acquainted with the allegations and defenses 

made by the parties in this case and has determined that competing motions for and 

against class certification are neither necessary nor welcome. Defendant has been 

granted leave to raise all issues it feels are relevant to class certification in its response 

to Plaintiff’s motion, i.e., Defendant is not limited to responding to Plaintiff’s arguments. 

The Court’s Scheduling Order does not prejudice Defendant. Accordingly, it is hereby

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2021 Page 2 of 3
3

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant ADT LLC’s Motion for Leave to File 

Motion to Deny Class Certification (DE [95]) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 1st day of April 

2021.

Copies furnished to counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-60972-AHS Document 98 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2021 Page 3 of 3