## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 ADT S EC URITY S ERVICES, I NC
. etal. , P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. L IS LE -W OO DRI DGE F IR E P R OT EC T I ON D IS TRICT an d C H I CA GO M ET R OPOL I T AN F IR E P R EV EN T I ON C OMPAN Y, D ef endants-A ppell ants , an d
D U P AGE P UB LI C S AF ETY C OMMUNI CAT I ONS, Inte rve ning-App el lant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 10 CV 04382

—Mi lt on I . Sh adur , Judge
.
A RG UE D A PRI L 22, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 31, 2013

Befo re W OO D , T INDER, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judge. I n thi s ca se w e r evi si t f actual an d l eg ali ssue s co nc erni ngthe I l l i no i s l aw e st ab l i sh i ng2 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 fi r e p rotect i o n di st r i ct s an d o ne di st r i ct ’ s eff o r t to s hut do wn th e pr i va te mar k eti n fir e al ar m moni to r i ng ser vi ces by substi tutin g f ori t a l ess sa fe a nd l ess reli able system ope rated by j us t one ch osen ven d or. I n 200 9 the Li sl e-W oo dri dge F i re Pro tect i on Di str i ct p assed an ord inan ce u nd er w hich i t took over fire al a r m mo n i t o r i n gf o ra l lc o mme r c i a lp r o p e r t i e s i n the D ist ric t. T h e pr iva te ala rm c om p an ies th at h ad p re vio u sly pr o vi ded th o se s er vi ce s i n th e Di st r i cts ue d, a l l eg i ng that the or dinance i nter fer ed w i th thei r b usi ness, cre ate d an i l l eg al m onopol y forthe Dist ri ct, vi ol ate d th eir con stitut ional ri gh ts, an d exc eed ed the D istri ct’s sta tutory p owers. In an e ar l i erappealfro m the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi rs t o rderper m anentl y e nj oi ni ng the Dis tr i ct fr o m i mp l e me n t i n gth e o r d i n a n c e a n d g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent for the al ar m co m panie s, we affi rm ed i n part, r eve rs ed i n part, and re m anded , fi nd i ng o n r ev i ew o fs um m ary j udg m en t th at th e Di st r i ctha d the a u t ho r i t y t o e n f o r c e p a r t s o fth e 2 0 0 9 o r d i n a n c e . We r emande d f o rthe di st r i ctc o ur t to r ev i se i ts pe r m an en t i nj uncti on. A D TSecu rity S vc s., Inc. v. Lisle-Wo o dridge F ire P rote cti on D is tr ict, 672 F.3d 492 ( 7th Cir. 2012). O n rem an d th e d istri ct court he ld a four-da y evide nt iary he ar i ng . The di st r i ct c o ur t i ss ue d a modi fi ed per m an en t i nj uncti on that was bas ed on new f actual fin d i ngs that ar e m or e deta i l ed and differso m ew hat fro m the l i m i ted su m m ary j udg m en t r ec o r d upo n whi ch w e ba se d o ur 20 12 de ci si o n. The Di st r i ctno w appe al s fr o m the re vi sed per m anen t inj uncti on o rderwith a l ong l i st of obj ecti ons, but i t a rgues pri m ar i l y that the r evi sed per m ane nti nj unc ti o n c o nfl i ct s wi tho ur2 01 2 dec i si o n.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 3 I n o ur2 01 2 dec i si on, w e pr es er ve d m ucho fthe Di st r i ct ’ s au th o r i tyt o e nf o r ce i ts o r di na nc e. B utthe evi denti ar y hea ring f ol l owing our re m and show ed that man y mat e r i a l f a c t s a r e a c t ua l l y di ffe r e nt fr om wh at we h a d t o a s s u me w h e n w e r e v i e we d th e g r a n to fs u mm ary j ud g m en t, p articu larl y w ith regard to the stat ut ory author i ty f orand th e m oti vati on a nd effi cacyo fthe Dist r i c t ’ s p l a n. We the r e f o r e fi nd , wi th a few m i nore xc e pti ons, thatthe m odi fi ed perm anent inj uncti on was a s o u n d e x e r c i s e o fth e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n . We affi rm the i nj uncti on with a few m odi fi cati ons.

I. Fac t ual an d Pr oc e dural Backg r oun d A. ThePar t i e s an d Al ar m Signal i ng and M oni t or i ng A pp el l ant Li sl e- W oo dri dge F i re Pro tect ion D i str i ct ( “the Dist ri ct”) i s a sp ecifi c ty pe ofm unici pal enti ty es tabl i sh ed bythe I l l i no i s F i r e Pr o te ct i o n Di st r i ctAct( “the A ct”) , 70 I l l

. C om p. S tat
. 70 5/ 1 et seq
. The Di str i ct pr ovi de s fi r e p r o t e c t i o n s e r v i c e s t o r e s i de nt s i n the v i l l age s ofLi sl e and W oo dri dge, I l l i noi s, and other uninco rpor ate d parts o fD u P age County. U nd erthe A ct, the Dist ri ct has the p o we rt o s e tfi r e c odes and t o e s t ab l i s h s t a nd a r ds f orfi re al ar m and dis patchi ng se rv i ces. 70 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 705/ 6( i ) , 70 5/ 11. T he Di str i ct fund s i ts w or k thro ugh taxes and i s g ove rned bya boar d oftrustee s. S ee 705/ 14. T he District d oes not receive fi re alarm s d irectly. Rat he r, fi re al ar m s withi n the Dist rict a re r ecei ved and dis

patched by i nter veni ng appel l ant DuPage Publ i c S afety C o mmu n i c a t i o n s , a l s o k n o wna s “ D u - C o mm. ” D u - C o mm4 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 i s a n i nter
- gov er nm ental en tity m ade up of28 m em ber po l i c e a n d fi r e a g e n c i e s i n D u P a g e C o u n t y, i n c l udi ng th e Di s t r i c t
. Du

- Co mm p r o v i de s e mer g e nc y di s pa t ch ser vi ces to thos e m em berag enci es. The pla i nti ff

- appell ees ar e private al ar m co m panie s th a tp r o v i d e a l a r m a n d mo n i t o r i n gs e r v i c e s t o c o mm er ci alpro perti es in t he Di str i ct. Fo r exam ple , a w ar ehouse, o ffi ce b uil ding, o r apart m ent com ple x m ay con tract w it h a n alarm com p an y to i ns tall an d m onitor a bu il d ing-w ide alarm system
. Th a t s y stem receives a fi re al ar m si gnal at the b uil ding’ s m ai n al ar m bo ar d fr om a s m oke detec tor in the bui l ding and then tr ansm i ts that si gnalto the l oca ldi spatc h erto se nd em er gency service s. The a l ar m c o m pan i es a l so pr o vi de m o ni to r i ng se r vi ce s: i n a ddi ti o n t o f ir e al ar m s i g na l s, t he al ar m bo ar ds also s end “tr oubl e” and “supervi sory” si gnal s, wh i ch i n d icate to the al ar m co m panie s e i ther th atthe a l ar m b oard is no t func ti o ni ngo rtha t so m eo ne a tth e p r e mi s e s h a s i n t e r fe r e d w i th th e s y s t e m ( e. g. , s hut offa w ater valve su p p lying the s p r inkler system ). The al ar m co m panie s r ecei ve the s i gnal s a t “ Central S t a t i o n s , ” wh i c h n e e d n o t b e g e o g r a p h i c a l l y c l o s e t o t he custo m er ’ s pre m i ses . Oft en an al ar m co m pany w i l lhave one com pany- w i de CentralS tat i on that it uses to re cei ve and send dispat ch si gnal s foral lo fi ts custo m er s. P rior to thi s l i ti gat i on, the pla i nti ffal ar m co m panie s provi ded al ar m and m oni tor i ng se rv i ces to thei r custo m er s as f o l l o ws: s m o k e an d fi r e detectors i n a b ui l di ng w ou ld send a si gnalto the al ar m paneli n the bui l ding, the a l a r m pa ne l ’ s c o mm un i c a t i o n de v i c e wo ul d se nd aN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 5 si gnalto the al ar m co m p an y’ s Centr alS tat i on, and an o per at o ra t th e Cen tr alS ta ti o n wo ul d m ak e a tel eph o ne c all to D u -C om m for d isp at c h in g. A n alt er n at ive to th is “Ce nt r alS ta ti o n” mode lf o rfi r e al ar m s y st ems i s th e
“ R em ote Sup ervising Station” m od el in w hich fire alarm and m oni tor i ng si gnal s a re tr ansm i tte d fr om bui l dings to a fac ility oth er th an a C en tr al St at ion, su c h a s a m u n icipa ldi s pa t c h b o a r d.

B
. The 2009 O rdinance I n Se ptem ber20 09, the Dist ri ct pas sed an or dinance th ata tt empte d t o o ve r ha ulalarm signal i nga nd m onito ring in the Dist ri ct. The o rdi nance r equi re d all com m er ci al proper ty own er s to ter m i nate thei r c ontr acts wi thpr i va te a l ar m c o m p an ies a nd ins te ad to a do pt an d pay f oran a l ar m an d m oni tor i ng sy ste m pro vi ded by the Di s t r i c t
. Und e rthe n e w s y s t e m, a l a r m bo a r ds at com m er ci alpro perti es w oul d be e quippe d w i th wir el ess tr an sm itt er s o w n e d b y th e D ist ric t t h at w ou ld tra n sm it al ar m , t r o ubl e, a nd s upe r vi so r y s i g na ls t o a r ec ei ving u n i tl o c a t e d a tth e D i s t r i c t ’ s F i r e S t a t i o n3
. T h e r ec ei vi ng uni t atS ta ti o n 3 woul d a ut o m at i ca l l y t r ansm i t th e si gnal s to anothe r re cei vi ng uni t a t Du-Com m , wh i ch w oul d then di spatch the r el evantem er gencyr esponse . T h e D i s t r i c tc l a i me d th a ti ts wi t c h e d t o th i s s y s t e m, w hi c h the Di s t r i c tde e med a R e mot e S up e r v i s i ngS t a t i on sys tem , bec ause i t was exper i en c in g o utage s a nd o ther probl em s with the pla i nti ffs’ pri vate m oni tor i ng thr ough C en tral Stations, includ ing tha t alarm notifi cation s w ere6 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

R eferenc es to the d is tr ic t court d ocket are not ed “D C-[ do cket 1 num ber ] , ” r efer en c es t o the M odi fi ed P er m ane ntI nj unc t i on, f ound i n the Appel l ant s ’ appe ndi c es ar e not ed “M PI [ p age num ber] , ” and referenc es to the tr an sc ri pt ofthe evidenti ary he ar i ng h el d M ay 24

- 29 , 20 12 ar e not ed “ [ W i tne s s na m e] [ page num ber]

. ” Those t ransc ri pts are docket num bers 343- 45. del aye d and tro ubl e s i gnals indic ating o utage s di d not tr i gge r prom pt r esponse s. DC

- 360 at 3; Fr eem an 265. 1 D ist ric t o fficia ls c l aim ed th at th e n ew sy st em w ou ld pr o vi de two mai n adva nt ag es o ve rthe s i g na l i nga nd m oni tor i ng pro vi ded bythe pri va te ala rm co m panie s: ( 1) i t was e ntir ely wi r el es s an d a ut o m at ed, e l i m i na ting th e n e e d f o ra h u ma n - o p e r a t e d t e l e ph o ne c a l lfr o m a C en tr al St at ion to D u -C om m a n d d ec re as in g th e t im e it to ok to res p on d to ala rm s, an d (2) it c o n n ec te d all si g n a l s d i r e c t l y t o th e D i s t r i c t ’ s o wnb o a r d , a l l o wi ng the Di str i ct t o m onit or a l lsi gnal s a nd to ensur e that a l lo ut a g e s we r e a ddr e s s e d. The Dist ric t t oo k b i ds fro m se ver alco m panie s t o set up the sys tem and pr ovi de the w i re l ess tr ansm i tte rs. I t settled on a com p an y call ed Ch icago M etrop oli tan Fi re Prev enti on Com pany — al so a de fen dan t an d a ppel l an t here

. Chica go M etr o w oul d supp l y the tr ansm iss i on eq u ip m en t: A E S/K elt ro n -m an u fac tu re d w ire les s ra d io tr an smi tt er s f o ra l lthe properti es , the Di st r i ct ’ s r ec ei ving un i t atS ta ti o n 3 , a nd the s ec o nd r ec ei vinguni t atDuCom m . ( A E S an d K el tr on r adio s a re sy nonym ous. Coveny 367 .) T h e D i str i ct s ent a not i ce t o al lco m m er ci al prope r t y o wne r s i n the Di s t r i c t, i nfo r mi ngthe m t ha tN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 7 th e ne w o r di na nc e ha d b e e n a do pt e d a nd tha t t hey w ou ld n ow be ch arged $66 p er m ont h for the alarm and m oni tor i ng se rv i ces and fo r the r adio tr ansm i tte r a nd i t s ma i nt e na nc e . T he n o t i c e a l s o b o l dl y i nfo rm ed su bsc ribe r s: “ I fy o u a r e unde rc o nt r ac t f o rmoni to r i ng w i th ano therve nd or, o ur o rdi nance now supe rs ed es th os e c on tr ac ts an d m ak es th em n u ll an d vo id .”

C

. P roc eedin gs B efo re the D istrict C o urt T he alarm com p an ies qu ickly fi led su it in th e N orthe rn Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s, al l eging tha t the o rdi n an c e vi ol ate d f edera l an t i t r us t l a ws a nd f e de r a l c o nsti tuti onal g ua r an tees ofe qua lpr o te ct i o n, due pr o ce ss , a nd the r i g htt o c o nt r ac t, a nd tha t th e Di st r i ctdi d no t h ave the leg al a u t h o rit y t o e n ac t t h e o rd in an c e u n d er th e Illino is Fi re P ro tecti on Di str i ct Act. On J uly20 , 20 11, the Dist ri ct Court gr anted t h e a l ar m co m panie s’ m oti on forpart i al s ummar y j ud g men t, a nd o n A ug us t1 6 , 2 0 1 1 e nt e r e d a perm anent inj uncti on e nj oin in g th e D ist ric t fr om en f o r ci ng a nd i m pl ement i n gt he Or di na nc e. The Di st r i cta nd Chi ca g o M et r o a ppea l ed bo ththe s um m ar y j udg m en t o r dera nd the pe r m an en t i nj unc ti o n.

D
. This Cour t ’s 20 12 O pi ni on O n Feb rua ry 27, 2012 , w e issued a n op inion (“ ADT I”), re ver si ng in partand re m anding f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs. Se e 6 72 F.3d 492 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)

. W e hel d that the Di str i ct w as author i zed under th e A c t to re quir e bui l dings to be8 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

In ou r 2 012 decis ion we used the 2010 versi on of the Co de, 2 but as we wil l ex pl ai n bel ow, the 20 02 ver s i on is the rele vant (co n tin u ed ...) connect ed dir ectly t o i ts dispat chi ng ce nterand to r equi r e th atthe t r an smi ss i o n n etwor kb e wi r el es s, b ut w e found that the Di str i ct w as n ot author i zed under the Ac tt o b e the s o l e p r o v i de r ofthe n e c e s s a r y e qu i pm en t. In ess ence, we f ound that the Di str i ct had fairly broa d author i ty i n i ts capaci ty as a fi re sa fetyr egul ato r but l i ttl e i f a n y author i ty to ste p i n as a par ti ci pant ( or th e s o l e p a r t i c i p a n t ) i n th e c o mp e t i t i v e ma r k e tf o rc o mm er ci alfi re al ar m si gnal i ng and m oni tor i ng se rv i ces. Looking fi rs t t o the Di str i ct’ s a uthor i ty und erthe A ct, w e held that th e A ct p erm itted the D istri ct to requ ire p rop erty tran sm itters to conn ect d irectly to the District’s own r ecei vin g b oar d and to r equi re thatthe tr ansm i ssi on syste m be w irel ess. Sect io n 1 1 of th e A ct p erm its fire pr o te ct i o n di stri ct s to “ ado pt an d e nf o r ce fi r e pr ev en tio n co d es an d st an d ar d s p ar alle l to n at ion al s ta n d ar d s.” 70 I l l

. Com p. S tat
. 70 5/ 11. W e inter prete d “paral l el ” t o m ean that the Di str i ct c oul d choos e t o re quir e o ne acceptabl e o pti on wh er e nat i onalst andards co ntem pla ted se ve ra l ac c ep ta b le op tio n s. ADT I , 67 2 F
. 3d at 501. I n the fi r e p r o t e c t i o n wo r l d, n a t i o na ls t a nd a r ds includ e the N ational Fire Prote ction A ss ociation’s “NFP A 7 2: N at i o na l F i r e Ala r m an d S i g na l i ng Code ” (the “Code ”)

. The Code co nt empl at es th e us e o f ei th er a Rem ote S up er vi si ng S tat i on s yst em o r a Centr alS tat i on sys tem
. S ee N FPA 72 § 8. 2, 8. 4 ( 2002 )

. Giv en the se opti ons, 2N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 9

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 e di t i o n . T h e s e c t i o n s we r e l i e d on i n A D TI are sub stan tially s i m i l ar i n the 20 02 e di t i on. w e a pp l i ed ouri nter preta ti on o f“p ar allel ” t o m ean that it w as w i thi n the sco pe ofthe Dist ri ct’ s a uthor i ty und er th e Act to r equi r e th e us e o fa Re m o te S upe r vi sing S ta ti o n s y st em to the e xc l us i on ofCe nt r alS ta ti o ns . The C od e p e r m itted the u se of eitherCentra lS tat i ons ora Rem ote S up er vi si ng Stat i on, and the Dist ri ct’ s s yst em was a R e mo t e S u p e r v i s i n gS y s t e m. We a p p l i e d th e s a me i nt e r pr e t a t i o n o fs e c t i o n 1 1 t o the Di s t r i c t ’ s wi r e l e ss r equi r ementa nd f ound tha t i t to o was “ par al l el ” to the N F PA Code , whi chl i st s wi r ele ss r adi o s as o ne acceptabl e m etho d oftransm i tting si gnal s. S ee ADT I , 67 2 F. 3d at 502, ci ti ng N FPA 72 § 26. 6. 2. 4. 1 (2 010) ; se e a l so N FP A 72 § 8. 5.2. 4.1 ( 2002 ). W e a ffirm ed the d istri ct cou rt’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm ent t o the e xtent i t hel d that the Di str i ct c oul d not anoi nt i tse l fo r i ts chose n v en dor as the e xcl usi ve pr o vi dero fthe wi r el ess r adi o t r an smi tt er s. W e f o und th atthe Co de di d no t au th o r i ze di st r i ct s to do s o a nd i ns t e a d ma de p r o pe r t y o wne r s r e s po ns ib l e fo rthe e qu i pm en t a t t h eir p ro p er ty
. ADT I , 672 F.3 d a t 50 3 ( “T he D istri ct, by m aking itselfthe sole pu r v eyor, installer, in sp ec to r, te st er , an d m ain ta in er of th e n ec es sa ry rad io tr ansm i tte r eq uipm ent, has usurped re sponsibi l i ti es th e N FP A cod e acco rd s to prop erty ow ne rs.”)

. W e r e man de d t o the di s t r i c tc o ur tf o rfur the rp r o c e e di ngs in l i gh t ofthes e ho l dings and to address the i ssues10 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

Appel l ant s ar gue thatthe di s t ri c tc our tabus ed i ts di s c re t i on 3 in t reat ing Fiore as an ex pert becaus e the al arm com panies 

### (continued...) re m ai ni ng be f or e the dist rict co urt. W e di d not r each al lr em ai ni ng i ssues , but w e a dd re sse d seve ra li ssues to gui de the dist ric t co urt i n future proce edi ngs. W e no ted that the Di str i ct woul d not l i kely hav e an “effecti ve m onopol y” on m on i tor i ng and equi pm ent i fwir el ess tr ansm i tte rs o therthan the Di str i ct’ s Kel tr on uni ts w oul d be co m patib l e with the sys tem , wh i ch i t s eem ed to u s wa s l i k e l y . We a l s o n o t e d th a t we i n t e r p r e t e d t he A ct a s no t per m i tting the Dis tr i ct t o charg e s er vice fees to i ts re si dents beyond the taxes it i s authori zed to co l l ect.

E
. Proc e e di ngs on Re m and U p on rem an d , the d istri ct cou rt held an ev id en tiary he ar i ng to r es o l ve f ac tu al di spu te s r el ev an t to m od ify i ng th e per m an en t i nj unct i o n in l i g hto fo uro pi ni o n. The cour t hea rd f our days of t est i m ony. Pl ai nti ff s’ witnes ses i nc l ude d Lo ui s F i o r e, a c o ns ultanto n a l ar m moni to r i ng and a speci alexper t t o the NFPA , and Edw ar d Bonif as, vic e presi dent ofpl ai nti ffA l ar m Detect i on S yst em s. Defe nd ants’ witnes ses i nclu ded Thom as Fr eem an, Chie f of the Di str i ct, J am es Fr ench, the Dist ri ct’ s Burea u Chief for Fi re Pre venti on, Law re nce Cove ny o fChica go M et r o , an d Br i an Te g tmey er, th e ex ec ut i ve di r ec to r o fDuCom m . OnlyFi or e w as f ound to be an exper t witness. S ee Tr. 53 , 13 8- 39 ( dist ri ct c ou rtper m i tte d Fi or e t o tes ti fy a s expertwitnes s; pl ai nti ff s’ co unselwithdrew Bonif as as op inion w itness ). 3N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 11



### (...continued) di d n otpr ov i de a n e x pe r tr e po r tpr ior t o the h e a r i ng . S e e F e d. R . C i v . P
. 2 6 ( a )(2 )(B ). B u ta p p e l l a n t s h a d r e c e i v e d F i o r e ’s affidavit over a m onth b efo re the heari ng, and i t c overed s ub s t a nt i a l l y the s a m e g r ou nd a s h i s dire c tt e s t i m on y. S e e DC28 7, Ex
. 1. Th e p u rp oses of R u le 26 (a)( 2) w ere satisfied b eca u se the appe l l ant s ha d am pl e t i m e t o pr epa re f or Fi or e’ s t es t i m ony at the hear ing and there w as no show ing ofunfai r s urpris e. T o th e ext e n t th at the re w ere a ny d iscrep an cies b etw een his testim on y an d his affid av i t, suc h d ifferen ces w ere h arm less. See Bani sterv. Bu rt on , 636 F. 3d 828, 833 ( 7th Cir

. 2011) ( f a il ure to file 26(a)( 2)(B) rep o r t w as ha rm less w he re o p p osin g p arty was no ts urp rised by the c ont en tofthe t es t i m ony)

. The dist ri ctcourt did not abuse i ts dis cre ti on in al lowing Fiore to testify as an exp ert w itness. A fterthe hear i ng the di str i ct c ourt o rd er ed the parti es to subm i t propos ed fi nd i ngs of f act and pr oposa ls fo r a m odi fi ed perm anent inj uncti on. On J uly6, 20 12 — seve n days be f or e the Di str i ct’ s s ubm i ssi ons w er e due — th e Dist ri ct pas sed a new o rdi nance. DC

- 360 at 2; Jo i nt S epara te A pp . 66

- 75. The new ordi nance r epeal ed the 2 009 or dinance and repl ac ed it w i th a m odi fi ed seto fr equi re m en ts. U nd erthe new 20 12 or dinance, the Dist ri ct wo u ld not own any tr an sm i tte rs and w oul d perm i t pr oper ty ow ne rs to cont ract w ith p rivate com p an ies for al arm t r a ns mi s s i o n a nd mo ni t o r i nga nd the n e c e s s a r y e qu i pm en t. B u t t h e s ign als w ou ld s till n ee d t o b e t ra n sm itt ed via the Di str i ct’ s wir el ess networkto the Dis tr i ct’ s r ecei ver a tS t a t i o n 3 t o b e t r a n s mi t t e d t o th e r e c e i v e ra tD u - C o mm. Underthi s ar r an g ement, the D istr i ctwoul d c o l l ec t no fee s fro m p ro p er ty ow n er s b u t D u -C om m w ou ld12 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

W e re fer t o t h e M od ifie d P erm anent I njunct ion s im ply as 4 the “i nj unc t i on, ” be c aus e i ti s the i nj unc t i on we ar e re vi ewi ng i n thi s opi ni on. co l l ec t fee s o n i ts b eh al f

. The Di st r i cta r g ue d b efo re the di st r i ct co ur t th at th e ne w o r di na nc e m o o te d th e cont r o v e r s y ; the p l a i nt i ffa l a r m co mpa ni e s di s a g r e e d.

F. M odi f i e d Pe r m ane ntInj unc t i on OnAugus t7, 2 0 1 2 , the Di s t r i c tCo ur te nt e r e d a M odi fi ed Per m anent Inj uncti on Orderand i ssued acc o mpa n y i ng f a c t u a lfi n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o fl a w. The cour t a dopted the al ar m co m panie s’ fi nd i ngs o f fac t, con c lu sio n s o f law , an d p ro p os ed inju n c tio n p ro visi ons. In ess ence, the M odi fi ed Per m anent Inj uncti on 4 re quir ed the Dis tr ict to perm i t the al ar m co m panie s to re cei ve and tra nsm i t s i gnal s di re ctl y fro m pro pe rty al ar m bo ar ds ( i nd ependentl y o fthe Dist ri ct) an d to r etr ansm it those si gnal s t o Du

- Com m vi a Centr alS tat i ons. S p e c i f i c a l l y, th e i nj u n c t i o n b a r r e d th e D i s t r i c tfr o m: r equi r i ngtha t an y fi r e si g na l s be s en t to S ta ti o n 3 ( i ns te ad i t r equi r ed th atS ta ti o n 3 b e shutdo wn) , c ha r g i ng re si dents f orfi re pro tect i on s ervices ( i ncl ud i ng anyfees charg ed by Du

- Com m ) , se l l i ng o r l eas i ng fi re al ar m sy ste m equi pm ent, and pro hibi ti ng si gnal s fro m pro perti es fro m bei ng se nt to Centra lS tat i ons. The i nj uncti on r equi re d th e D ist ric t: to allo w ala rm c om p an ies to u se an y t ec h n olo g y e qui va l en t to wi r el es s tr an smi ss i o n a nd c o m pl i an t w i th the N FPA co de, to adopt the m ostc u rrent ver si on ofthe N FPA co de, to r efund to pro pe rt y ow ners feesN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 13

T he D istr i c t also sou g ht a stay of the inju nc tion fro m this 5 Co urt, w hich w e denied in part but granted to the ext ent that the inju nc tion req u ired the D istrict to refun d the fees it co lle ct ed fr o m re sid en t su b sc ri b er s. A D TSecu ri ties, In c. v. Lisl eWoodr i dge Fi reP ro t ec t i on Di st ri ct, O rder, N o. 12- 2925; 12- 2981 ( 7th Cir

. Sept. 11, 2012) ( dism is si ng N os. 12- 221 9 an d 12-2220 a s m o o t). col l ecte d by the Di str i ct s i n ce the 20 09 or dinance too k effec t, t o di r ec t Du- Co m m t o c o o per at e wi ththe ala rm co m p an ies so itc o u ld rec eiv e w ire les s s ign als d i r e c t l y fr o m C e n t r a lS t a t i o n s , a n d t o di r e c tD u - C o mm to pr e- po pul at e i ts compute rda taba se wi thna m es a nd ad d ress es of the p rivate alarm com p an ies’ cu stom ers to decrea se re sponse ti m es. The i nj uncti on a l so prohibi ted the D ist ri ct fro m en for c in g t h e n ew ord in an c e a n d red ac te d th e 2 00 9 o rd inance in acco rd an c e with i ts provi si ons. The di str i ct cour t e xplained that, al th ou gh m any o fthe new pr o vi si o ns o fthe i nj unc ti o n s eem to c o nfl i ctwi th ADT I , that w as because m any o fthe f actu alas sum pti ons that we ha d t o make i n ADT I turned out to b e u n su p port ed by the e vi dence pres ented atthe hear i ng. The di stri ct co ur t i ss ue d a s epa r at e m emor an dum e xpl aini ngwhy the ne w o rdi nance di d not m oo t the co ntro ver sy. The Dist ri ct a nd Chica go M et ro appeal ed. They e ach 5 po i ntt o many s uppo sed fl aws i n the i nj unc ti o n a nd the a c c o mpa n y i n gfi n d i n g s o ff a c ta n d co n c l u s i o n s o fl a w. Mo s to ft he i ra r g u me n t s d o n o tp e r s u a d e u s . R a th e r, we ag re e w ith th e d ist ric t c ou rtth at th e n ew ord in a n c e d id14 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

no t effec ti ve l y moo t th i s co nt r o ve r sy . W e al so fi nd no cl earer ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actualfin d in gs. I ns te ad, the fact s fo und b y the di st r i ctc o ur t afte rthe evi denti ar y hea ring per suade us that, w h ile the l ega l p r in ciples of ADT Is t i l ls t a nd , g i v e n the a c t ua lf acts here , the new i nj uncti on s ets appropr i ate bo un d ar i es f orthe Dist ri ct a nd doe s n ot co ntra vene ADT Ii n m osto f th e wa y s th a tth e a ppel l a n t s a r g u e . Ho we v e r, we fi nd tha t se ve r alpa rts o fthe i nj unc ti o n e xc ee d the propersco pe ofi nj unc tio ns. W e m odi fy the i nj uncti on bys tr i k i ngthe po r ti o ns requi r i ngthe Di st r i ctt o r efund fe e s t o s ub s c r ib e r s a nd requi r i ngthe Di s t r i c tt o a do pt th e m o st cur r en t ve r si o ns o f th e N F PA c o de. W e thus affi rm the i nj uncti on with a few m odi fi cati ons.

II. D i s cu s s i on T he numer o us a r g um en ts r ai se d b y the Di st r i cta nd Ch i cago M etr o on a pp ealf al li nto seve ral cat ego ri es. They ar gue that the i nj uncti on: ( 1) co ntra venes ADT Iby bar ring the Dis tr i ct fro m enf or ci ng i ts dir ect- connect r equi r ement, ( 2) e xc ee ds th e pro pers co pe o fi nj unc ti o ns by bi nd i ng a non- party( Du

- Com m ) a n d aw ar ding re l i ef to non-p ar ti es ( re fund s t o subscr iber s) , and ( 3) i gnor es the 2 012 or dinance th at s up posedl y m oo ted the co ntro
ver sy or at l eas t shoul d hav e re pla ced the 2009 o rdi nance i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a nal ysi s. W e hav e j uri sdic ti on under 2 8 U.S .C . § 1292 t o re vi ew an ap p ea l from an inju n c tio n . (Sev er al c laim s re m ain pe n d i n gb e f o r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, s o th e r e h a s b e e n noN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 15 fi nalj ud gm ent. ) W e r evi ew the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s f actual fin d ings f orcl earer ro r, i ts entr y o fthe i nj uncti on for abuse ofdi scr eti on, and i ts leg al concl usi ons deno vo . S ee Knapp v. Nor t hwe s t e r n Univ
. , 10 1 F

. 3d 473, 47 8 ( 7th C ir. 1996). Based on the facts r eve al ed at the e vi denti ar y hea ring, w e fi nd thatthe i nj uncti on i s g ener al l y a pp ro pri ate an d n otan ab u se of d isc re tio n . W h en w e firs t h ea rd th is case i n ADT I

, we r e v i e we d th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r an t o fs um m ary j udg m en t. W e were req uir ed to v i ew the evi dence and dis pu ted f acts i n a l i gh t m ostf avo rabl e t o th e D istri ct an d Ch ica g o M etro. B ut the evid en tiary hear i ng r eve al ed m an y m ate ri alf acts to be quit e d if ferent in reali ty from the inferen ces w e w ere r e q u i r e d t o d r a w in th e D i s t r i c t ’ s f a v o ri n ADT I, in c lu d in g s u c h c r i t ica l issu es as th e D ist ric t’s m ot ive in e n a c t i ngth e o r d i n a n c e , th e e ffi c a c y o fth e n e w s y s t e m, and the D ist ri ct’ s a uthor i ty to i m ple m ent the new system
. Th e Di s t r i c t a nd Ch i c a g o M etr o obj ect to m any o fthes e fi nd i ngs on ap peal, but w e r ej ect thos e a rgum ents. Based on these fi nd i ngs, we fi nd that the m aj orel em ents o fthe i nj unc ti o n — shut tingdo wn th e Di str i ct ’ s S ta ti o n 3 an d pe r m i tt ingpr i va te Cen tr alS ta ti o ns t o r ec ei ve a nd tr ansm i t a l ar m si gnal s — w er e wel lwithi n the dist ri ct cour t’ s di scret ion. Com m er ci alpro perti es i n the Dist ri ct m us t ha ve s o m e f o r m o ffi r e al ar m moni tor in g, b utthe Dist ri ct’ s pl ans a nd r equi re m ents f orsuch s ervic es ar e be yond the Dist ri ct’ s l ega lautho ri ty, so i t was appropri ate f orthe dist ric t c ou rtto r equi re the Dist ri ct t o16 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 perm i t pr i vate al ar m co m panie s t o p ro vi de that ess enti al ser v i c e . M o r e o v e r, the f a c t s ha v e r e v e a l e d tha t the Dis

tr i ct’ s s ystem is les s r el i abl e a nd m or e danger ous than th e p riv at e a lar m co m p an ies ’ sy st em s, d o es n otco m p ly w i th N FPA st andards, and i nter fer es w i th the plainti ff s’ abi l i ty to ser ve thei r custo m er s. The 20 12 or dinance did notr em edy the se i l l s s o as to re nd erthi s di spute m oo t. I t would h ave the effect of conti nuin g t o b l o c k t he a l a r m c o m panie s f ro m p ro vid in g a l a r m m on ito rin g s er vic es to cu st om er s in th e Di st r i ct
. To th e ex te nt th e i nj unc ti o n i nc l ud es DuCom m ev en tho ugh i t i s no t a party, we fi nd that the inj un c tiv e m eas ures i nvol vi ng Du-Com m ar e a pp ro pri ate bec ause Du

- Com m expre sse d i ts w i l l in gn ess to c o o per at e i n the way s r equi r ed bythe i nj unc ti o n. I fDuCom m does notf ol l ow through, the d i str i ct c ourtm ay need to deter m i ne D u -C om m ’ s e xact s tatus w i th r espect to the inj uncti on, i ncl ud i ng w h et her i t m i ght b e deem ed an ag ent o fthe D istri ct a nd al re ady subj ect to conte m pt pow er s, but w e ho pe thatw i l ln ot be ne cess ar y. Despit e o ur a pp ro valo fthe cor e e l em ents ofthe m odi fi ed i nj uncti on, we tak e i ssue w ith a few o fi ts anci l l ar y e l em ents.

A

. M o o tness W e fi rs t ad dress the thre shol d questi on o fwh ether the 2 012 or dinance m oo ted thi s di spute. S ee Pakovi ch v. Ver izon LTD Pla n , 6 53 F
. 3d 488, 49 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)

. The Dist ri ct a rgues that i ts el eve nth-ho ur r epealo fthe 2009 or dinance and repl acem ent o fit w ith the new ordi nanceN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 17

m oo ted the enti re co ntro ver sy. The Di str i ct a rgues both that the ne w o rd inance r endered the m odi fi ed per m an en t i nj unction m o o t an d tha t, a t a m i ni m um , the dist ri ct c ourter re d by no t a na lyz i ng the new ordi nance i nstea d ofthe 2009 o rd i nance. W e fi nd thatthe 2012 o r di na nc e do es n o t mo o t th e d i s p u t e o ve r t he m od ifi ed perm anent inj uncti on. The al ar m co m panie s w oul d sti l lf ace a va ri etyo fi nj uri es stem m ing fro m the ne w o rdi nance. The probl em o fm oo tness pose d by a defendant’s change i n pol i cy or p ra cti ce pos es a r ecurr i ng probl em wh en i nj unc ti ve r el i efi s so ught

. “ [ T] he mer e ce ss at i o n o fthe conduct so ught t o be e nj oi ned does no t m oo t a sui t t o enj o i n the c o nduc t, l es t d ism i ss alo fthe s ui t l ea ve the d efe n d an t fre e t o re su m e t h e c on d u c t t h e n ex t d ay .” Chic ago U nited Ind us . , Lt d. v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 44 5 F
. 3d 940, 947 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , ci ti ng Fr i e nds of theEar t h, Inc . v. La i dl aw E nvironm ent al Se rvic e s ( T O C ), Inc. , 528 U
. S. 167, 189 (2000 ). B u t a ca se m ay st ill be m oo t i ft h e re is n o re as on ab le ex p ec ta tio n th at th e w ro n g w ill be r ep ea te d

. Chic ago U nited Ind ustries , 445 F.3d at94 7-4 9 (fin d in g it “ h igh ly unlikely ” that ci ty w oul d conti nue to depri ve contr acto r off airhear i ng, but case was not m oo t with re gar d to d am ages aw ard ). Speci fi cal l y, “[ t] he co m ple te re pealo fa chal l enged l aw re nd er s a c ase m oo t, unl ess ther e i s e vi dence cr eat i ng a r ea so nabl e ex pec ta ti o n tha t th e Ci tywi l lr ee na ctthe or dinance oro ne subst anti al l y s i m i l ar . ” Fed ’n o f A dv er. Indu s . Repre s e nt at i ve s , Inc . v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 326 F. 3d 924, 930 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)

. W e a pp l y a r ebuttabl e pr es u m p tion18 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 th at gov er n m en t a c to rs w ill no t re p ea t o bj ec tio n ab le b eh av ior a fte r an inju n c t i on is lifte d

. Id

. , ci ti ng City of M e q u i t ev . Al ad di n ’s Ca s t l e, In c. , 45 5 U.S

. 28 3, 28 9 ( 1982 ) ( case not m oo t where possibi l i ty re m ai ned that ci ty w ou ld r een act p reviously enjoine d ordina nc e langu age). Thi s pr es um pti o n c anb e r ebu tted i fa l o ca lg o ve r nm en t re enacts p ro vis ion s su b st an ti al l y s i m i l arto tho se i ni ti al l y r epe al ed. S ee 13 C Cha r l es Ala n W r i g ht & Arthur R. M i l l er, etal

. , Fe d. Prac. & P ro c. § 3533
. 6 (3 d ed. ) ( “r epeal f ollow ed by re enactm ent o fpro vi si ons si m i l arto tho se r epeal ed do es no t m o o t a co nt i nui ngc ha l l en g e” ) , c i ting Firem a n’s Fun d Ins. C o . v. City of Lo di, 30 2 F .3d 92 8, 93 6 n .8 ( 9th Cir

. 2002 ) ( new or dinance and r epeal of c h al l enged or d in an ce whil e a pp eal s were pend i ng di d not m oo t appeal s where “co re di sputes b etw een the par ti es rem ain[ed ]”). H er e, the new 20 12 or dinance did notr eso l ve the di spu tes betw een the par ti es. U nd er t he new ordi nance, al ar m com p an i es a r e per m i tt ed to r ec ei ve a l ar m a nd m oni tor i ng si gnal s a t Centr alS tat i ons, b u t they m ust tran sm it those s ignals to Station 3 via the D istri ct’s wi r el es s ne two r k so th at th e si g na l s woul d th en be s en t fro m S tati on 3 to Du-Com m f ordi spatchi ng. The Di str i ct claim s that the new ordi nance r em ove s the Di str i ct i ts el ffr o m the moni to r i ngb us i ne ss a nd pe r m i ts the alarm com p an ie s to provid e thos e services to cu stom ers in the Dist ri ct. But the new o rdi nance k eeps s eve ra l re q u ire m en ts fro m th e origin al ord in an c e th at w o u ld c on tin u e t o inj u re th e a lar m co m p a n i e s b y e ffec tiv ely bl ock ing them fro m m oni tor i ng in the Dist ri ct o r that ar e be yond the Dist ri ct’ s a uthor i ty to i m pose.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 19 The fi rs t a nd m osto bviou s i s that the new ordi nance k eep s Station 3 as a cen tral part of the D istri ct’s m oni tor i ng plan. U nd erthe new o rdi nance, acc or ding to the Di str i ct, si gnal s would be se n t by CentralS tat i ons to S t a t i o n 3 a n d th e n t r a n s mi t t e d t o D u - C o mm. As we expla i n bel ow, St ati on 3 does notm eetthe basi c sa fety re quir em ents to functi on a s a n i nt er m edi ar y s tat i on und er the Code. The ar ra ngem ent und er th e new or dinance w oul d place ev en m or e ofthe fi re al ar m sy ste m ’ s essen ti alc o nne ct i o ns a t th e uns upe r vi se d S ta ti o n 3 w i thout back

- up equi pm ent than the or i gi n al or dinance w oul d have. T h is new r equi re m ent i s no t “ paral l el ” t o th e C od e and therefore is not w ithin th e D is trict’s a uthor i t y t o r e qu i r e u nd e rthe Ac t
. S e e 7 0 I l l

. Co mp. St at. 70 5/ 11. Se cond, to prov i de al ar m m oni tor i ng and si gnal i ng, the a l ar m co m panies m ust j oi n the Dist ri ct’ s wir el ess ne two r k

. Thi s ne two r ki s a cc es sibl e wi tho nl y o ne spe ci fi c ty pe o ft r an smi tt er, whi chis n ot th e ty pe th e al ar m co m panie s use . S ee Coven y 37 6, 439. A l though the a l ar m c om p ani es propos ed usi ng se ver alo therty pes of r ad ios in an attem p t to w or k w ith th e D istri ct’s wi r el es s r equi r ement, no ne a r e co m pat ibl e wi ththe ty p e o f n et w or k a n d r ec eiv er u se d atSta tio n 3. Id

. at38 3- 385. In f act, the new o rdi nance s peci fi cal l y s ta tes that ala rm c o m p a n ies w ill ha ve to tra n sm it a ll th eir sign als to a “ K el tr on 7 03 Com m unica tion s Board” t o gain acce ss to the Di str i ct’ s s yst em . Thi s r equi re m ent m eans that al arm c o m pan i es muste i th err epl ac e al lo fthe i re xi st i ng equi pm ent a nd tr ansm issi on t echnol ogyo r they cannot pr o vi de al ar m moni to r i ng se r vi ce s to c us to m er s i n the20 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 Dist ri ct. S ee Coveny 439. E x cl ud i ng al ar m co m panie s fr o m the moni to r i ngb us i ne ss o rmakingi t undul y b ur den

so m e f o rthe m to pa r ti ci pat e r ai se s si g ni fi ca ntc o nc erns ab o utthe a nt i

- co m pet i ti ve e ffec ts o fthi s r equi r ement, a nd the ne w o rdi nance per petuates rat h er than s ol ves th i s p r o b l e m. Th i r d, a l tho ugh the n e w o r di na nc e t e c hn i c a l l y p e r mi ts the a l ar m co m panie s t o re cei ve al ar m si gnal s a t Centr al St at ion s, it re q u ire s t h e a lar m an d m on ito rin g s ign als al so to be s ent s i m ult aneously t o the D istri ct’ s S tat i on 3
. Bes i des the f ac t th atS ta ti o n 3 do es no t co m pl y wi ththe Code , this r equi r ementi s pr o bl emat i c be ca us e cur r en t ala r m tra n sm itt er s fo r c om m er c ial p ro p er tie s g en er ally ar e in c ap ab le of s e n d in g t w o s ign als sim u lta n eo u sly ( i.e. , one to th e C en tral Station and one to S t ation 3). Bonif as 180- 81. Pl ai nti ff s’ witnes s B on if as sta ted that such dual m oni tor i ng i s “abs ol utel y not” feas ibl e, bec ause in the District “th ere is an i ns talled pop ulation of alarm pan el s al r ea dy i n pl ac e, ” a few o fwhi chmay ha ve the capabi l i ty ofadding equi pm ent t o al l ow tw o outputs, but the “va st m aj or i ty w i l lnot
. ” Id

. H e a l so expla ined that, wh en the Dis tr i ct s ai d t hat dualm oni tor i ng was p os sib l e, i t use d the e xam ple o fW al

- M ar t, wh i ch i s a pr o pr i e t a r y s y s t e m a nd “ ha s c o nt r o lo fthe a l a r m e qu i pm ent that the y b u y,” and “can choos e a pro du ct that autom ati cal l y has two outpu ts and hang two tr ansm i tter s o n i t a nd m ake i t work

. ” Boni f as 180. W i thout du alm oni tor i ng, al ar m co m panie s are effecti ve l y pr ec l uded fr o m moni to r i ngthe i re qui pm en t at pr o te ct ed pr o per ti es b ec au se e xi st i ngt r an smi tt er sN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 21

w i l l b e ab l e t o s e nd o nly o ne s i g na l a nd the new o r di na nce re qui r es tha t a si g na lb e se ntt o S ta ti o n 3
. The D ist ric t’s s o l u tio n for th is u n d er th e n ew ord in an c e is th atthe a l ar m c o m pan i es woul d r ec ei ve t r o ubl e an d su per vi so r y s i g na lno ti fi ca ti o ns i n b at che m ai l s fr o m the Dist ri ct. But thi s would notal l ow the co m panie s t o re sp on d p ro p er ly to th es e s ign als . B on ifas d e s c r i b ed h is co m pan y ’ s p ro ce dur es f o rs er vi cingb r o k ene qui pm en t i n re sp onse to tr oubl e s i gnal s, and he e xplained that an em ai l

-base d syst em i s no t co m patibl e with thi s be cau se emai l s wi l lno t po pul ate th e se r vi ce l o g s f o rt ec hni ci an s i n the fi el d. Bonif as 155- 56; se e a l so id . a t 2 15- 16 ( “Em ai lwould not pu t the hi sto ryi nto the c om p u ter wher e we o per at e o ure nt i r e 30, 000 ac co untb as e to o ur ser v i c e t e c hn i c i a ns a nd di s pa t c h the m a nd l e t the m see w h at h as h ap p e n e d w ith th e s ys te m .”); id

. at18 4 ( “We wo ul dn ’ t b e ab l e t o po pu l a t e o ur s e r v i c e l og an d m ak e s u re th a t p eo p le ge t o u t a n d res to re it, as w ell as the l i ttl e t abl et i n the techni ci an’ s hand s. ”)

. Li ke th e wi r el es s ne two r kr equi r ement, thi s r equi r ement w oul d effecti vel y pr ecl ud e the al ar m co m panie s fro m pr o vi di ngmoni to r i ngs er vi ce s an d ra i se s se r i o us c o nc er n s a b ou t t h e a n ti-c om p et itiv e e f fec ts of th e n ew ord inance. Thus , the r e i s a r ea so nabl e ex pec ta ti o n b o ththa t th e al ar m co m panie s’ co m pla i nts wil lnotbe sat i sfi ed by th e n ew ord in an c e a n d th atth e n ew or d in an c e s till ex ce eds the s co pe o fthe Di st r i ct ’ s l eg ala ut hori ty
. The 2012 o rdi nance di d not m oo t the di spute.22 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

O therevidence that has c o m e to o ur att enti on si nce ADT I 6 s ugge s t s thatthe Dis t ri c tm ay have be en m ot i vat ed t o adoptthe or d ina nc e no t on ly for th e p u rp o r t ed safety im p ro v em en ts, butal s o f or fi nan c i al ga i n. A Power Poi ntpr es en t at i on t o the Dis t ri c t ’ s B oa rd pr opos i ng the or di nan c e not ed the “r eve nue s t re am ” as an advan t age of a “Di s t ri c t
- Ow ne d N etwork, ” and em ai l s fro m K el t ro n t o a M uni c i pal Al ar m Boar d For um en cou rag ed the D istrict to ad op t its ow n netw or k b eca u se “w ithout the revenue being col le ct ed speci fic all y f rom al arm sub scrib ers for rece i v i n g alarm serv ice, m u nicip alities w ill b e lay ing offd ispa tche rs firem e n in sp ecto rs an d oth er p eo p le (co n tin u ed ...) B
. Fac t ualFi ndi ngs I n ADT I

, we revi ew ed a g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent, so th e D ist ric t b e n efit te d from fac tu al in fer en c es in its fav or an d an u n d er -d ev elo p ed re c or d , p ar tic u lar ly w i th r ega rd to how th e Di str i ct’ s pl an would address i ts co n c er n s a b ou t t h e s afe ty an d effic ac y of a lar m m on ito r i ngi n the Di st rict. Se e 672 F
. 3d at4 96

. Butthe facts foun d at the ev ide n t iary h earing cas t the District’s ac tions i n a v er y di ffer ent l i ght. S peci fi cal l y, we have si nce l earned th at und erthe Dist ri ct’ s m oni tor i ng, bui l ding al ar m bo ar ds w er e o ut o fse rv i ce a t a hi gher ra te th an u n d er th e a lar m co m p an ies ’ m on i t o r in g. A lth o ugh the Distr i ct ’ s si g na l s wer e r es po nde d t o i n a shor terti m e than thos e s ent fro m Centra lS tat i ons, that adv a n t a g e e a s i l y c o u l d b e a c h i e v e d f o rs i g n a l s s en t fro m Centra lS tat i ons too
. A nd the Dist ri ct’ s wir el ess ne t wo r ko pe r a t e d o n a fr e qu e nc y l e s s r e l i ab l e than typ ical fi r e a larm netw ork fr eq ue nc ies. Th e d istri ct cou rt 6N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 23

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 [ si c]
. ” See D C-303, Ex. I at 36; Ex. M at 70. The em ailblam es the “c en t ral stati on i ndus t ry ” for the s e pro bl em s , c l ai m i ng thati t“i s ona m i s s i on t o t ake away al l m uni cip al m oni t or i ng and keep the revenue f or them se lves

. ” D C-303, Ex. M at 70. did notcl ear l y e rri n ad op tin g fa ctualfi nd i ngs b ase d on t h es e rev el ati ons. S ee M PIFa ctualFind i ngs ¶¶ 53, 59

- 60, 74

- 76.

1. Syste m Reli abil ity Befo r e th e Di st r i ctt o o kove ra l la l ar m moni to r i ng w ith th e o rd in an c e, th e a lar m co m p an ies rec eiv ed m on ito r i ngs i g na l s th r o ugh Ce nt r alS ta ti o ns a nd wou l d s en d a t e c hn i c i a n o utt o as s e s s a nd r e pa i rthe a l a r m e qu i pm en t. Edwar d B onifa s, a n e xe cut i ve o fo ne o fthe pl aint i ff al ar m c o m pan i es , de sc r ibe d ho w hi s co m pan y wo u l d r e s p o n d t o t h e s e s i g n a l s : “ Un d e rt r o u b l e s i g n a lwe woul d fi r stno ti fy the cl i en t to l etthe m kno w tha t th e sys tem is i n tr oubl e. I ftheyar e under a s er vi ce c ontr act, w e would di spatch a s er vice pers on t o the b uil ding to det er m i ne what th e tr o ubl e i s, make a r epa i rt o i t an d put th e sy st em backt o no r m ala g ain. ” Bo ni f as 1 55
. He e xpla i ned th at “our s er vi ce t echni ci ans, wh en the y g et to the fi el d, can r evi ew the hi sto ryo fthe acco unt ri ght o n th e i rP C o rt ab l e tw h i l e th e y a r e s t a n d i n gi n th e c u s t o mer s’ b ui l di ng, s o the y h ave ful li nf o r m at i o n fo rho w the sys tem has oper ate d.” Boni f as 184. Boni f as tes ti fi ed th at w i th these proce du re s, “the aver age perce ntage of unr estored signals and out-of-se r vice acc ou nt s for fi re alarm24 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

a c c o un t s i n the Di s t r i c ti s a to rund e rtwo p e r c e nt, ” a c c o r di ng to r epor ts the c om pany ge nera tes
. Boni f as 161. T estim ony at t h e h earing revea led m uc h h igher out -of

ser vi ce r ate s with the Dist ri ct’ s m oni tor i ng. Boni f as tes ti fi ed that he anal yze d hundreds of pages ofunres tor ed s i g n a l s a n d o u t
- o f

- s e r v i c e r e p o r t s fr o m D u - C o mm. H e found that o nce the Di str i ct’ s s yst em becam e o perati onal, o ver12 per cent ofacc ounts w er e o ut o f se rv i ce ata ny po i nti n t i m e. Bo ni f as 1 85 , 1 95
. U nd erthe Dist ri ct’ s s yst em the Dist ri ct r ecei ves re port s o fo utage s a n d t r o u b l e a n d s u p e r v i s o r y s i g n a l s fr o m D u - C o mm. Recor ds i nd i cate d that those r eports h ad not been ch ecke d or review ed at all

. Bon if a s 204. Th e D istri ct’s wi tn e s s e s d i s p u t e d th i s n u mb e r, c l a i mi n gth a tt he perce nt o fo utag es w as und er2 perce nt, Fr eem an 30 2- 03, but afterhear i ng te sti m ony fro m b ot h si des, the dist ri ct c ou rtcr ed ite d th e t es tim on y of t h e a l a rm co m p an ies in i ts f actualfi nd i ngs. M PIFa ctualFind i n gs ¶ 53. That fi nd ing w as no t clear error.

2. R espo nse Tim es One ofthe Dist ri ct’s s ta ted ai m s in passi ng the 20 09 o r di na nc e wa s t o s ho r t e n the r e s po ns e t i m es — t h e t i me from w he n “a d etec tion system noticed a sm oke or fire condi ti on t o the t i m e [ the Di str i ct was] not ified” o r dispatch se rv i ces w er e s ent. S ee Fr eem an 26 5. A cco rd ing t o Du

- Com m , i t co uld r ecei ve and dispatch al ar m s fro m pr i v a t e C e n t r a lS t a t i o n s i n l e s s th a n 6 0 s e c o n d s , b ut fro m St ati on 3 und er the Dist ri ct’ s sys tem i n l es s t han 30 sec ond s. T egtm eyer 466- 6 7 . T he reason f or this dif-N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 25

W e tak e jud icial no tice of th e l i c e nse for th is freq u en cy , call 7 n u mbe r WQKZ7 2 0 , wh i c h l a b e l s th e r a di o s e r v i c e a s “ I G – I ndus t r i a l /Bus i ne s s P oo l , Co nv e nt i on a l

. ” Ava i l a bl e a tF CC Li c en s e Sea rch , http ://wi re l es s 2. f c c . gov/Uls App/ Uls Se ar c h/ se a rc h L ic en se .jsp (la st v isi te d Ju ly 29 , 20 1 3 ). ferenc e w as th at allof th e ad d resses an d ot h er nec essary d is p atch i nform ation for the D istri ct’s su bsc ribers wer e “pr e- po pul at ed” i nt o Du- Comm ’ s com p ut er s. The sam e i nform ation for the alarm com p an ies’ cu stom ers w as not si m i l ar l y pr e-p opula ted i n Du

- Com m ’ s co m pu ter s. W hen p re sse d, though, Du-Com m ’ s e xecuti ve dir ecto r tes ti fi ed that Du

- Com m would be abl e t o pre- popu l ate i ts dat ab as e to i nc l ude addr es s an d o th eri nf o r m at i o n fo rthe al ar m c o m pan i es ’ c us to m er s, whi ch woul d the n r edu ce the aver age di spatch t i m es f ortho se alarm s t o l ess than 30 seco nd s, th e s a me a s i fthe a l a r m ca me i n fr o m t he Di str i ct’ s S tat i on 3
. Tegt m eye r 496; se e a l so id

. at 466- 67.

3. R adio N et w ork Int er fe re nce T he ev i den ti ary he ar i nga l so r ev ea l ed th atthe Dist ri ct’ s new w i re les s netw or k o perat es on a l ess re l i abl e fre quency than fi re and safetysignal s usual l y do. The FCC li censes two m ai n types o fpri vate ( i.e. , notfor com m er ci alpurposes) radio fre quencie s: “Publ i c S afety Pool ” a nd “Ind ustr i al/Busi ness. ” S ee 47 C.F

. R. § 90. 1. The freq u en c y the Di str i ct use s t o connectthe K el tr on unit s a t pr oper ti es to St ati on 3 i s a n “Ind ustr i al/Busi ness” fre q u en c y. T h e in d u st ria l/b u sin es s fre q u en c y p oo l is

7 f orco m m er ci alact iviti es and othernon- em er gencyac-26 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 ti vi ti es ( su cha s th e “o per at i o n o f ed uc at i o na l, phi l an thro pic, o r eccl esi ast i cali nsti tuti ons”)

. S ee 4 7C. F
. R. § 90. 35. This can inclu d e taxis, f ar m er s, and other busi nesse s. Se e In reRepl ac e m e ntof Par t90by P ar t88 t o Re vi s ethe P riva t e L a nd M o bile R a dio Servs. & M o dif y th e P o licies G overni ng Them & Ex am inati on of Ex clus ivity & Freq uency A ssign m ents P o licies of the P riva te La nd M o bile Serv s. , 12 F
. C. C. Rcd. 14 30 7, 14 31 7, 1 43 28 ( 19 97 ) ( “S i m i l ar l y, fr eque ncies i nitially set asid e for tax icabs (Ta xicab Rad io Servi ce ) c o ul d b e us ed i n r ur ala r ea s byf ar m ers or in the oper ati on o fm i nes, ” a nd descr ibi ng ind ustr i al/b usi ness poolas f orwh er e, f orthe m ostpart, “r adio i s use d to su p p or t b u sin es s o p er at ion s” ). In co n tr as t, th e p u b lic safetypooli s forpol i ce a cti vi ti es, l i fe- supp or t s er vi ces, and o th eract i vi ti es i nvol vi ng i m port ant a nd em er gency functi ons, i ncl ud i ng fi re pro tect i on. 47C. F. R. § 90. 20. The al ar m co m panie s’ exper t t est i fi ed that the Ind ustr i al/Busi ness P oo l i s l ess r el i abl e than the Publi c S afety Poolbec ause i t i s l ess se cure a nd m or e s usceptibl e t o i nter rupti ons: “So som eone w i th a taxi cab com pany that you have no co ntro lo verco uld be o n thi s fre q u en cy, ke y a m i cro phone f or seve ra l m i nutes, and knock ou t s ev eral A ES r adio s. ” F i or e 5 19. S ee al so In reRepl ac e m e ntof Par t90, 12 F.C .C . Rc d . at 1 43 12 (d es c r ib in g p u rp os e o f P u b lic S afety Po o l : “ W e co ns i der ed th es e g ui del i ne s ne cessary to preve nt o ver cro w ding and to m ai ntai n the i ntegr i ty of crit ica l fu n c tio n s of th e us er s inc lu d ed w ith in th is pool. ”). Thus , the f ac ts r ev ea l ed by th e ev i den ti ary he ar i ng substa nti al l y a l ter ou r und er sta nd i ng o fthe f actualbac k-N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 27 gr ound ofthi s ca se. W e are n o l onge r re quir ed to gi ve the Di str i ct the be nefi t o ff avo rabl e infe re nces re quir ed by th e sum m ary j ud gm en t po stu re of ADT I , a n d we now kno w m or e about the Di str i ct’ s m oti ves f ori ts new m oni tor i ng p lan and the shor tco m i ngs o fthatnew p l an i n ter m s o fsa fetyand re l i abi l i ty.

C

. Th eInj u n c t i o n C o mp l i a n c ew i t h A DT I S i g ni fi ca nt ne w f ac ts wer e al so pr es en te d a t th e ev i den

ti ary he ar i ngr eg ar di ngo ura na l y si s i n A D TI oft h e Di str i ct’ s s tatutor y a uthor i ty und erthe A ct. W e hel d that th e Di st rictha d the r egul at o r y a utho r i tyt o i m po se the “dir ect connect ” r equi re m ent — w hi ch w e underst oo d to re quir e that a l ar m si gnal s be sent dir ectly fro m pro perti es to a Rem ot e Supervi si ng S tat i on, r atherthan thro ugh th e “ m id d lem en ” C en tr al St at ion s. ADT I , 672 F. 3d at 49 6, 5 01

. W e f o und tha t o ptingfo ra Re m o te S upe r vi si ng St ati on m odeli nstea d ofa Central St atio n m odelwas “pa r al l el ” to the NFPA co de so tha t th e Di st r i ctha d the author i ty und erthe A ct t o i m pose the r equi re m ent. T he eviden tiary h e a r ing after our rem an d , how ever, re veal ed sever al facts thatal tero ur a nal ysi s o fthe Distr i ct’ s a ut h or i ty to i m pose the “ dir ect connect ” r equi re m en t. T h es e fi n d in gs sh ow th at th e D ist ric t’s sy st em is i n f a c tn o ta nymo r e “ di r e c t ” tha n the p r e - o r di na nc e pri vate ar ra ngem ents beca use i t r outes al lsi gnal s thro ugh St at ion 3, w h er ea s t h e p rior arr an ge m en t s im ilar ly rout ed signals throu gh Ce nt ral Stations

. M oreover, St ati on 3 i tse l f does not com ply w i th nati ona l st an dards. A s actu all y i m p lem en ted , the refore, the D istri ct’s28 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 “d irect conn ect” requ irem en t w as no t w ithin its statu tory author i ty to i m pose re gul ati ons “para l l elto n at ional stan d ard s.” Se e 7 0 I ll

. Com p . Stat. 705/11

. W e the refore fin d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtac te d w ith i n i ts d isc re tio n in enj oi ni ng the Dis tr i ct fro m r equi ring al lsi gnals to r oute thro ugh St ati on 3 r atherthan CentralS tat i ons.

1. St at i on 3 Not a Re m ot eSu pe r vi s i ng St at i on F i r st, o urr ea so ni ngi n ADT Irested on th e un d ersta nd i ng tha t th e D istr i ct’ s S tat i on 3 w a s the Rem ote S upe r vi singSt at i o n — th e fa c ility rec eiv in g s ign als d irectly fr o m prote cted prop erties w ith no interm ed iary st o p i n b e t we e n . B u ti ttu r n s o u tth a tS t a t i o n 3 i s n o tthe Rem ote Supervi si ng S tat i on. Du-Com m i s the Rem ote Superv i si n g St atio n, and si gnal s a re tr ansm i tte d fi rs t t o S ta ti o n 3 b efo r e be i ngs en t o n t o Du- Comm

. Thi s m ea ns th atthe Di st r i ct ’ s “di r ec t co nn ect” r equi r ementi s no m or e “ dir ect” than the pr e- or dinance ar ra ngem ents, as both ar ra ngem ents i nvol ved tr ansm i tting si gnal s fro m poi nt A to B to C: A ( proper ty) to B ( St ati on 3 o r Central S tati on) t o C ( Du- Comm )

. The Di st r i cta r g ue s th atthe tr an smi ss i o n fr o m S ta ti o n 3 to D u-C o m m i s no t a se co nd tr an smi ss i o n b uta n “ au to tr an smi ss i o n” s uchtha t th e si gnalfro m the proper ty shoul d be un d er st oo d to be tr a ns mi t t e d fr o m S t a t i o n 3 t o Du

- Co mm a ut o mat i c a l l y. Bu t thi s doe s not m ak e the path fro m a prot ecte d proper ty to Du

- Com m “di re ct, ” a s the si gnalis sti l ltr ansm itt ed th ro u gh Sta tio n 3, ev en if t h at h ap p en s a u to m at ical l y when the s yst em i s work i ng as i t i s s up posed to

.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 29

T he p arties su b m itted ha rd cop ies of the N F P A 72 stan d ard s, 8 whic h are no t othe rwi s e re adi l y a vai l abl e. W e i nc l ude the tex t ofthe rel evant prov is ions i n the A pp endix. 2. St at i on 3 Does NotM e e tNFPA 72 CodeStanda r ds I n a n y even t, Station 3 su ffers from a secon d , m ore funda m en ta lpr o bl em tha t was r ev ea l ed dur i ngthe ev i den ti ary he ar i ng . I t d o es no t co nf o r m t o the ap p lica b le C od e a t a ll. T h e p ar tie s d isp u te th is v i g o r o us l y, b e g i nn i ngwi th whi c h e di t i o n o fthe Co de to use. The Di str i ct has adopted the 2002 edi ti on o f NF P A 7 2 , s o we u s e th a te d i t i o n o fth e C o d e . ( As we ex pl a i n b e l o w, the Di s t r i c ti s n o to b l i g a t e d t o a do pto r ho l d i ts el ft o a ne w edi ti o n. ) Rega r dl es s, the 2 00 2 an d lat er ed itio n s h av e n ea rly id en tic al la n g u ag e (a lbe it und erdi ffer ent sect i on num ber s) i n the re l evantse cti ons. Com pare N FPA 72 § 8. 2, 8. 4 ( 2002 ) , w ith N FPA 72 § 26. 3, 26.5 ( 2010 ). 8 M o r e funda m en ta l l y, the pa r ti es di spute ho w the Code w oul d charac ter i ze St ati on 3 and w hat r equi re m en ts a ppl y t o i t a s a resul t. The a l ar m c o m pan i es a r g ue th atS ta ti o n 3 sh o ul d b e co ns i der ed a “s ubs i di ary s ta ti o n” und erthe C od e, wh i ch the Code defines a s a se parat e, unsup er vi sed s tati on thro ugh w hi ch si gnal s ca n be tr ansm i tte d to a superv i si ng st ati on. S ee N FPA 72 § 3. 3. 192 ( 2002 )

. A s a subsi diary s tat i on, St at i on 3 would be subj e c tt o the Co de ’ s s a fe t y, r e l i ab i l i t y, a nd s e c ur i ty stan d ard s for su ch a station. See N FP A 72 § 8.2. 5.2 ( 2002 ). The Di st rict and Chi ca g o M et r o a r g ue tha t S ta ti o n 3 i s no t a su bs i di ary s ta ti o n a nd i s no t su bj ec t to a ny30 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

The C od e i n cl u d es s eparate se ct ions gov erni ng C entr al 9 St a t i o n fi r e a l a r m s y s t e ms a n d Re mot e S u p e r v i s i n g S t a t i on fire alarm system s: section 8.2 go v ern s Ce ntr al Sta tio ns w hile se ct ion 8. 4 gov erns R em o te Sup ervis ing St ati ons. See N FPA 72 § 8.2 , 8.4 (20 0 2 ). speci fi c sa fetyo r re l i abi l i ty sta nd ar ds. T h ey ar gue that th e re qui r ement s f o rs ubs i di ary s ta ti o ns a r e i n the po r ti o n o fthe C ode appl i cabl e to Ce nt r alS ta ti o ns , a nd be ca us e th e Di stri cto per at es a Re m o te S upe r vi sing St ati on fi re al ar m s ystem , tho se re quir em ents cannot ap p l y t o St at ion 3. T h ey arg u e in st ea d th at Sta tio n 3 is 9 an “a lte rn at e loc at ion ”: W here per m itte d by the autho ri ty havi ng j uri sdic

tion, fi re alarm and sup ervisory s ig na ls shallbe pe rm i tte d to be r ecei ved atan a l ternate l oca ti on appr o ve d b y the a utho r i tyha vingj ur i sdi ct i o n. N FP A 72 § 8. 4.2. 1.2. * (2002). The ter m “al ternate l oca ti on” i s no t defi ned i n the Code, and the Code does notappear to ar ti cul ate a n y requi re m ents f or“a l terna te l oca ti ons. ” W e a ske d counself or the Di str i ct during o ra lar gum ent what r equi re m ents su cha n a l tern at e l o ca ti o n wo ul d ne ed to meet, a nd he id en tif i ed n on e. So th e D ist ric t’s ap p ar en t p os itio n is that th e C ode co nsi ders St ati on 3 to be an “a l ternate l ocat ion ” und erse cti on 8
. 4 a nd as such does notsubj ect i t t o any re quir em ents f orsa fety, se curi ty, and re l i abi l i ty. W e fi nd the a l ar m c om p an i es ’ po si ti o n — th atS ta ti o n 3 is at l east su bj ect to th e requ irem en ts of a “su bsi d iaryN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 31

s t a t i o n” un de r c ha pt e r8 — to be m or e per suasi ve than th e D i st r i ct ’ s po si ti o n tha t th e st at i o n i s su bj ec t to no re q u ire m en ts atall. T he re are several problem s w ith th e D is t rict’s int erpr et at i o n. F i r st, th e sec ti o n i t ci te s as pe r m i tt i ng si g na l s to be r o ut ed th r o ugh an “a l te r na te lo ca ti o n” ac tu al l y r efer s to th e d est ina ti o n l o ca ti o n — the Rem ote Sup ervising Station itself( li ke D u-C om m ), not an i nt erm ed iar y loc at ion su c h as Sta tio n 3. See N FP A 72 § 8.4 .2.1 (2002 ) ( perm i tting two o pti ons f orf aci l i ti es to ser ve as th e rem ote su p ervising station itself, i nc lud ing a n “a lternate l oca ti on”)

. A ny f aci l i ty ser vi ng as the desti nati on re m ote sup er vi si ng st ati on m ust m eetsubst anti ve re qui r em en ts, i nc l udi ngtha t th e “r emot e su per vi sing st at i o n s ha l lha ve no t l es s th ant wo t r aine d a nd co m pet en t per so ns o n d uty a t th e r emot e su per vi sing st ati on a t a l lti m es. ” N FPA 72 § 8. 4. 3. 5. 1 ( 2002 )

. Th is sect i on does nots ay thatthe Dist ri ct m ay desi gnate an “al ternate l oca ti on” as an i nter m edia ryst ati on thro ugh w h ich to r oute si gnal s be f or e they a rr i ve at the Rem ote S u p e r v i s i n g S t a t i o n . I n f a c t, n o th i n gi n s e c t i o n 8
. 4 c o n t e mpl at es tha t al ar m s i g na l s un d er a r emot e su per vi sing syste m w o uld be tran sm itted throu gh an interm ed iary sta ti on a t a l l

. S ecti on 8
. 4 d oe s conte m pla te re tr ansm i ssi on in subsec ti on 8
. 4. 3. 4, but that appli es to tr ansm i ssi ons fro m the Rem ote S u p er vi si ng S tat i on t o anothe r loc at ion . N FP A 72 § 8.4 .4 .1 (20 02 ) (ala rm sign als sh all be i m m edi at ely r et r an smi tt ed i fthe Re m o te S upe rvis i ng St ati on i s a t a l oca tio n other than the publi c fi re se rv i ces com m un ications cen ter).32 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 Se cond, ev en i fse cti on 8
. 4’ s r eferen c e to an “a l ternate l oca ti on” coul d referto an inter m edi ar y s tat i on be tw een p ro p er tie s a n d th e re m o t e s u p er vis in g s ta tio n, i t is unl i k ely tha t su cha s ta ti o n w ou ld no t be s ubj ec t to a ny N FPA r equ irem ents. The r efer ence note to thatse cti on i nd i cates: “A l i ste d centr alst ati on m i ght b e co nsi dered an accep table alternat e location for receip t of fi re alarm and supervis or y s i gnal s. ” N FPA 72 § A 8. 4. 2. 1. 2. ( 2002 ) ( Such an ar ra ngem ent was pre ci sel y how t he Di str i ct o per at ed be f o r e th e 20 09 o r di na nc e, wi thCe nt r alS ta ti o ns re c eiv in g a lar m an d su p er vis or y s ign als .) T h e C od e is othe rwis e s i l ent as to w hat a n “al ternate l oca ti on” m ay be o renta il, b uti ts o nl y g ui dan ce i ndi ca te s th atthe Code con templ at es tha t i t co ul d b e a Cen tr alS ta ti o n, and C entr alS tat i ons ar e hel d to hi gherst andards than subsi diary s tat i ons. Com pare N FPA 72 § 8. 2. 5. 2 ets eq . (2002) (l isti ng requ irem en ts for su bsid iary stations), wi th§ 8
. 2. 6. 2. 1 ( r equi r ement s f o rCe nt r alS ta ti o ns , i ncl ud i ng two super vi si ng per sonnelatal lti m es, wh i ch m atch the p erson ne l requ irem en ts for R em ote Sup ervi singS ta ti o ns u nde rs ec ti o n 8
. 4. 3. 5. 1)

. Thu s, o n o ur read ing, sect ion 8.4 d oes not cont em p late an interm ed iary sta ti on at all, but ra thertr ansm i ssi on fro m pro perti es dir ectl y t o a s up er vi sed st ati on ( ei thera CentralS tat i on orano therl oca ti on m eet i ng the per sonnelr equi re m ents of section 8.4. 3.5. 1). T h i r d , th e D i s t r i c t ’ s p o si ti o n s e e ms i mpl a u s ib l e , a s we do ub t th a t th e C o d e wo u l d p e r mi t a fi r e d i s t r i c t t o do w hat t he Di str i ct has at tem pted to do her e: r er oute tr ansm i ssi ons to a r ecei veri n an unsupervi sed r oo m with no ba ck- up equi pm ent a nd no m echani sm in p l ace toN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 33

re sto re si gnaltr ansm i ssi on qui ckl y i fther e a re te chnic al probl em s. Chica go M etr o’ s witness Larr y Cove ny te sti fi ed th ati fthe r ec ei ve ra t St ati o n 3 s to pped func ti o ni ng, the f o l l o wi ngs te ps woul d ha ve t o b e t ake n t o r epa i ri t: DuComm woul d h ave to r ec ei ve a s i g na ltha t i t was do wn, Du- Comm woul d th en ca l l th e Di st r i ct, so m eo ne at the Dist ri ct woul d then cal lChica go M etro, and Chicag o M et r o woul d the n s en d s o m eon e o utt o fi x the he ad- en d unit . C oveny 45 3. Thi s pro cess co uld l i kely t ake se ver al hours, w hi ch w e doubt the Code shoul d b e in terpret ed to perm i t, since i t re q uir es subsi diary s tat i ons und er se ct i o n 8
. 2 to ha ve r edu nda nte qui pm en t func ti o ni ng as back

- up withi n 90 s e co nds

. S ee N FPA 72 § 8. 2. 5. 2. 3. I n contr ast, the al ar m co m panie s’ argum ent that S tat i on 3 is a “su b sid iar y sta tio n ” an d m u st m ee t th e a p p lica b le requ irem en ts is a m ore sens ibl e read ing. A “su bsid iary sta ti on” i s defi ned as
a no rm al l y unatt ended locati on that i s r em ote fro m the s up er vi si ng st ati on and i s l i nked by a co m m unica

ti o ns c ha nne l ( s) t o the s upe r vi sings ta ti o n. I nt er co nne ct i o n o fs ignals o n o ne o rmor e tr an smi ss i o n c ha nne l s fr om p r o te ct ed pr emi se s wi tha c o m m uni ca ti o ns channel ( s) to the supervi si ng st ati on is per f or m ed atthi s l o ca ti o n. N FP A 72 § 3. 3.192 (2002). T h is d es c rib es Sta tio n 3 inall m at er ial re sp e c t s : it is unattended, r em ote fr om the re m ote superv i si ng st ati on ( Du- Comm ) , l i nk ed b y a c o m m uni ca ti o ns c ha nne l( th e w i re l ess r adio net w or k) to Du-Com m , and connect s si gnal s fro m p ro p er ti es to Du

- Com m . The Code defi nes34 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 a “ su p er vis in g s ta t i o n ” a s “ a fa c ility th at rec eiv es sign als and at which per sonnelar e in att endance atal lti m es to resp ond to these sign a ls

. ” N FP A 72 § 3. 3.193 (2002). W e recogn ize that th e requ irem en ts for su bsid iary sta ti ons ar e found in sect i on 8.2, wh i ch appli es to Cen tr alS ta ti o n fi r e alarm s y st ems, b utthi s se ems the bestfi t forS tat i on 3 , as se cti on 8
. 4 does notco ntem pla te an int er m ed iar y s ta tio n atall. T hu s, either t h e C od e d oes not cont em p late an interm ed iar y re tr an sm itt in g s ta tio n atall , o r s u c h a st at ion is a “ subsi diary s tat i on” and m ust m eetthe re quir em ents ofse cti on 8
. 2. 5. W e thi nk the l att eri s the be tter re ading

. S o di d the a l ar m c o m pan i es ’ e xpe r t, Lo ui s F i o r e, who hel pe d wr i t e the Co de

. He s a i d tha t “ whe n we wr o t e 8. 4, w e di dn ’ t e nvi sion thi s co nfi gura ti on” ( re fer ring to an i nter m edi ar y st ati on be tw een pr oper ti es and the Rem ote Su p er vis in g St at i o n ) , b u t t h at h e w ou ld ins te ad ap p ly th e re q u ire m en ts for a su b sid iar y s t a t ion from se c tio n 8.2 to such a sta ti on. S ee Fi or e 1 09. A s the di str i ct c ourtco rr ectl y f ound, St ati on 3 does no t m ee t th e requi r ement s o fs ec ti o n 8
. 2. 5. 2 ( inc l udi ng s ub s e c t i o n 8
. 2
. 5
. 2
. 3 )

. I tdo e s no t ha v e the n e c e s s a r y e qu i pm en t f o r a ba c ku p ch an n el t o b e “ op er at ion al w ith in 90 seco nd s, ” § 8. 2. 5. 2.3 , and i t doe s no t m eetthe i nd epend ent cer ti fi cati on r equi re m ents of“UL 82 7, ” s ee § 8.2. 5. 2, whi chr equi r e r edu nda nte qui pm en t an d c ha nn els

. St ati on 3 i s not cer ti fi ed by U L 8 27 and there is on ly o ne r ec ei vinguni t atS ta ti o n 3
. Co ve ny 4 53 ( o nl y o ne re cei vi ng uni t a t S tat i on 3 ) ; Fi or e 1 26- 27 ( no e vi dence th at Station 3 m eets N FP A Cod e).N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 35 Thus , the e vi den ti ary hea r i ngr ev ea l ed th atS ta ti o n 3 does not m eetthe Code standar ds, l eaving pl ain tiff s’ CentralS tat i ons as th e o nl y Code- com pli ant m eans of tr an smi tt i nga l ar m s i g na l s fr om p r o per ti es i n the Dist ri ct t o Du

- Com m . In l i ght o fthes e f acts , the dist ri ct court ac ted withi n i ts disc re ti on t o re quir e the Di str i ct t o s h u td o wnS t a t i o n 3
. B e c a u s e th e C o d e r e qu i r e s c o mm er ci alpr o per ti es t o ha ve fi r e al ar m moni to r i ng, a nd th e inj u n c tio n p u t St at ion 3 ou t o f co m m iss ion, on ly C en tral Stations are c u r rent ly a viable option for al arm mon i t o r i ngi n the Di s t r i c t
. T he i nj unct i on the r e f o r e a ppropri ate l y r equi re d the Di str i ct t o perm it si gnal s t o be s e n tt o C e n t r a lS t a t i o n s s o th a tfi r e a l a r m mo n i to r i ng i n the Di st r i ctwoul d r emai n c o m pl i an t w i ththe N FPA Code.

D
. Inj u n c t i o n a s A p p l i e dt o Du

- C o mm The i nj unc ti o n a l so i nc l ude s pr o vi si o ns r equi r i ngthe D istr i ctt o e nl i stDu- Comm ’ s co o per at i o n in e nabl i ng CentralS tat i ons to m oni tor
. Fi rs t, i n l i gh t of th e di str i ct cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t S tat i on 3 was not in co m pli ance with th e C od e a n d th at th e D i s t r i c t m u stth er efo re p er m it CentralS tat i ons to tr ansm i t a nd m oni toral ar m sign als, the di str i ct c ourtenj oi ned the Di str i ct t o: d i re ct DuCom m to co oper ate as r eas onabl y r equi re d by th e A larm Com p an ies to i m p le m e n t a proc ed ure so th at ce n tr al s ta tio n s c an au to m at i c a lly re tr an sm it fi r e a l a r m s i g na l s t o the Du Co mm SI S c o mput e ra nd , to the e xtent that DuC om m upgrades i ts CA D syst em36 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981
t o r e c ei v e fi r e a l a r m s i g n a l s th r o u g h NL E T S, AS AP to PSA P tr ansm i ssi ons. M PI¶ 5

. Sec ond, gi ven that fi re al ar m si gnal s r ecei ved fro m CentralS tat i ons w oul d take 30 se conds l onge r to d isp at c h th an th os e re c eiv e d f r om Sta tio n 3, bu t o n ly b e c a us e the r e l e v a nta ddr e s s e s we r e n o tp r e - po pu l ate d i n Du

- Com m ’ s co m pu ter s, th e di str i ct c ourtal so or dered the Dis tr i ct t o: dir ect Du Com m to co operate as re aso nabl y r equi re d by th e A larm Com p an ies in t h e im p lem en tation of a proce du re to popula te the DuC om m CA D syst em w i th the necess ar y info rm ati on about the Com m er ci al A ccou nt s to red uc e th e tim e lag in d ispa tc h in g em erg en cyvehi cl es a nd fi r e truck s, c o ns i st en t wi ththe m eth od no w be i nge m pl o y ed byDuCo m m f o rthe Dist ri ct’ s Com m er ci alA ccounts. M PI¶ 4

. A pp el l ants and i nter venorD u -C om m ar gue that th es e pr o vi si o ns o fthe i nj unc ti o n i m pr o per l y b i nd DuCom m , wh i c h i s n o ta p a r t y t o the s ui t
. F e de r a lR ul e o f C ivi l Proc ed ur e 6 5 p erm its courts to enj oin a pa rty’s “o ffi ce r s, a g en ts , se r va nt s, em pl o y ee s, and a tt o r ne y s” a nd “ot her perso ns wh o ar e in acti ve concer t o r parti ci pati on” w i th a partyo r its offi cer s o r age nts, so l ong as thos e per sons have re cei ved actual notice ofthe i nj uncti on. Fe d. R. Ci v. Pro c. 65 ( d)( 2) ( B)- ( C). The part i es dispute both w hetherD u-Com m is an “a gent” o fthe Dist ri ct, gi ven that i t i s g ove rned and dir ecte d by a bo ar d m ade up ofN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 37

r epr es en ta ti ve s fr o m i ts mem ber ag en ci es , i nc l udi ngthe Dist ri ct, see Tegtm eye r 501; Fr eem an 27 7- 78, and w hether i t r ecei ved sufficie n t no ti ce o fthe i nj uncti on. Dis tr i ct co ur ts ha ve b r o ad di sc r et i o n to enj oi n thi r d pa r ti es who re cei ve appropri ate not i ce o fthe cour t’ s inj uncti ve or de r. H -D M i c higa n , L L C v
. He l l e n i cDuty F re eS ho ps S
. A. , 694 F.3d 827, 842 (7th Cir. 2012). As i nt er es tinga s th e pr o bl em ofthe pr ec i se l eg als ta tu s of D u -C om m m ay be , th e i nju n c tio n d oe s n otap p ly di r ec tly t o Du- Comm

. I t di r ec ts th e Di st r i ctt o “ di r ec t DuCom m to co oper ate
. ” An d D u-Com m ’ s e x ecu ti ve d ire c to r B ria n T e g t m ey er te st ified th at D u -C om m is ab le to coo perat e with the Dist ri ct in th e w ays descr ibed by thos e par agr aphs. A t the ev i denti ar y hea ring, he t est i fi ed about Du

- Com m ’ s abi l i ty to pre- popu l ate i ts com pu ter wi th th e a d d r e s s e s a n d i n f o r ma t i o n o fth e a l a r m c o mp a n i es ’ cu st om er s. Inres p on se to a q u es tio n as kin g “ if the a l ar m co m panie s g ave yo u t h e s am e data and yo u as sign a pos i ti on forea ch oftho se com m er ci alacc ounts, you coul d i npu t i t into the s am e co m pu ter, co rr ect? ” Tegtm eye r answ er ed, “I could input the sam e info rm ati on i nto the com pu ter, the dispat ch co m pu ter
. ” Teg tm eye r 496; see al so id . a t 4 8 9

- 9 0 ( a n s we r i n gy e s , th a tD u - C o mm coul d prepopulat e i fCent ra l S tat i ons gave the i nfo rm atio n, bu t t h at “w e h av e n ev er d isc u ss ed th e m e t h od olo g y ” a n d “ w e h a v e n ’ td o n e i t, ” b u tth a tD u - C o mm w ou ld n ot nee d any m ore equ ipm en t to do it). A s t o the fi fth par agrap h, al though Du-Com m does not y e th a v e th e c a p a c i t y t o r e c e i v e th e s p e c i fi c ty p e o fc o nnecti on that the al ar m co m panie s’ exper t t est i fi ed38 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

w ou ld allow C en tr al St at ion s t o t ra n sm it s i g n als d ire c tly to Du

- Com m ’ s co m pu ter, the ex p ert t est i fi ed that enabl i ng Du-Com m ’ s co m pu terto do s o w oul d i nvol ve a s oftw ar e cha nge that would be an “ eas y fi x. ” F i or e 1 22. W e r e a d p a r a g r a ph s f o ura nd fi v e o fthe i nj unct i on as i mpo s i n g a d i r e c t o b l i g a t i o n o n o n l y th e Di s t r i c t, b ut wi th the u nd e r s t a nd i ngtha t D u- Co mm a pp e a r s r e a dy to coo perat e with the Dist ri ct in car ry i ng o ut the re quir em en ts o ftho se pa r ag r aph s. I fDu- Comm refuses the re quests ofi ts m em berag ency, the Dist ri ct, the dist ri ct co ur t m ayne ed to c o ns i der( a) whethe rthe e xi st i ng i nj un c t i o n s up po r ts h o l di ngDu

- Co mm i n c o nt e mpt und erRule 65 , p ar ti cul ar l y whether Du

- Com m i s a n
“ a g e n t ” o f t h e D i s t r i c t a n d wh e t h e r Du

- C o mm re cei ved suffi ci en t n ot ice ofthe i nj uncti on fori t t o be bound dir ectly b y the inj uncti on, o r ( b) wh etherto consi der m odi fyi ng the i nj uncti on a fterappropr iate proce edi ngs so as to re m ove any ar guabl e u n c ertainty. Se e F ed. R. Ci v. P. 65 ( d)( 2) ( B); se e a l so La k e Sh o r e A sset M ana gem entLtd. v. Co m m odity Futures Trading C om m ’n , 511 F. 3d 762, 7 67 (7th Cir

. 20 07) ( Rule 65’ s no ti ce r equi re men tme a ns p a r t y ’ s a g e ntf a l l s unde rR ul e 6 5 ( d) ( 2 ) ( B) or( C) o nl y a fte r the a gent i n questi on “ i s g i ven no ti ce an d an op p ortu nity to b e h eard , ” includ ing the opp ortu n ity to pre sent evi dence on the quest i on o fi ts re lat ion to th e p ar ty ). A lth ou gh D u -C om m ce rt ain ly now has n otice of th e inj un c t io n a nd has h ad the op p ortu n ity to d i sp u te its rela tio n sh ip to th e D ist ric t in thi s a p peal, we need not re sol ve here wh etherthatm eet s Rule 65’s requir em ents, norwh etherDu-Com m i s a n age nt o fthe Dist ri ct.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 39 U nl ess and unti l Du

- Com m changes i ts m i nd abo ut pre
popu l ating i ts databas es or re prog ra m m i ng i ts c om p uter so C en tr al St a t ion s c an au to m at ica lly tr an sm it s ign als th er e, we ne ed no t addr es s th o se iss ue s. Ce r ta i nl y, the e v i de nc e a pp e a r s u nd i s pu t e d tha tthe s e a r e s t e ps that w oul d enhance sa fetybyi m proving res ponse ti m e a nd tr ansm i ssion r el i abi l i ty, and w e hav e di ffi cul ty i m agini ng wh y Du-Com m would r esi st such i m prove m en ts. G ive n T egtm eyer’s testim ony abou t D u-C om m ’s ab ility to co op er at e o n th es e s afe t y m e as u re s, w e w ou ld be s ur pr i se d if D u-Co m m c ho se t o c o nt es t fur th erthe age ncy a nd not i c e i ssues under Rul e 6 5. I fi t doe s, th e d istri ct cou rt can take ap p rop riat e s t ep s to ensu re co m pl i an ce wi thi ts i nj unc ti o n.

E
. The New O rdinance Forthe re aso ns abo ve, we fi nd thatthe i nj un c tion appr o pr i at ely pr o hibi ts the Di st r i ctfr o m e na ct i ngthe ba si c co m po ne nt s o fi ts moni tor i ngpl ani n l i g hto fthe f ac ts f o und a t th e ev i den ti ary he ar i ngb ec au se the Di st r i ctl ac k s th e l eg ala utho r i tyt o enac t i ts pl an . The Di st r i ctno w cl ai m s th at i ts 2 01 2 o r di na nc e av o i ds th e pr o bl ems po se d b y i ts 2 00 9 o r di na nc e an d tha t the i nj uncti on i m proper l y disre ga rd ed it. Ra th er than an alyzing the new ordina nc e in l ight of ADT Ia nd the ev i den ti ary he ar i ng s, the di st r i ctc o ur t enj o i ne d the Dist ri ct fro m enf or ci ng t h e new or dinance and m odi fi ed the o ri gi nalo rdi nance byr edacti ng i t t o conf or m with ADT Ia n d i t s n e w f a c t u a lfi n d i n g s . MP I¶ ¶ 2 0 , 1

. We can underst an d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r el uctance to40 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 und er tak e the ta sk ofm odi fyi ng i ts w or k o n the i nj uncti o n t o a c c o un t f o r the Di s t r i c t ’ s l a s t
- s e c o nd e ff o rtto avo i d fur therl iti gat i on. The Di str i ct pas sed the new o r di na nc e j us t day s be f o r e i ts pr o po se d fi ndi ng s and concl usi on s a nd supporting m em or anda f orthe m odi fi ed prel i m i naryi nj uncti on a nd sum m ar y j ud gm ent were due. But a lthoughthe 2 01 2 o r di na nc e di d no t m o o t th e co nt r oversy, i t di d r epl ac e th e 20 09 o r di na nc e, s o the 20 12 o r di na nc e i s th e r el evantDi st r i cta ct i o n fo rthe pu rpos es ofo u r anal ysi s a nd we w i l ldi re ctl y r evi ew i ts l ega l i ty. Thi s k eeps the co urts fro m stan d in g o n the s haky gr ound ofr equi ring the Dis tr i ct t o reviv e i ts alr ea d y-r ep ea led ord in an c e. S ee , e . g. , D eSo t o S e c. Co. v. C. I
. R. , 23 5 F
. 2d 409, 41 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 56) ( “The co urts can only interp ret con gressiona l acts
. Th ey can not l egislate. ”). W e fi nd thatthe f ol l owing port i ons o f the new or dinance m ust be s tr uck t o conf or m i t t o our opi ni on to daya nd in ADT I :


### < I n sec tio n 2
. 3, the l astse ntence shal lbe str uck: “T he Di st r i cts ha l l, ho wev er, mai nt ainth e C o mmunicati o ns Bo ar d f o rpur po se s o fr ec ei vinga nd re l aying to Du-Com m , Genera t e d S i gnal s t ra nsm i tte d fr o m Affe c t e d P r o p e r t i e s v i a n e t wo r k s ma i nt a i n e d b y L i c e n s e d A l a r m c o mpa n i e s , a s c o n t e mpla ted bythe provi si ons ofthi s Ordi nance. ” This sente nce co nfl i cts w i th par agr aph 7 o fthe i nj unction, w hich r e q uires th e D istri ct to sh ut dow n its alarm boar d a t St ati on 3. Because w e agr ee w i th th e d istri ct co ur t th at S ta ti o n 3 do es no t co m pl y wi ththe r el ev an t p orti ons ofthe Code, the new o rdi nance ca nnot p er m itN os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 41 St ati on 3 to co nti nue oper ating , a n d thi s s entence m ust be s tr uck.



### < Se cti on 2
. 4 s hal lbe re dacted as f ol l ows: T he Ow ne rs of all A ffecte d Prop erties, on or before th e d at e fo r c om p lian c e s etfort h in Se c tio n 4.1 he r eo f, s ha l le ng ag e a Li ce ns ed Ala r m Co m pan y of th e O w n er ’s c h oic e t o p ro vid e a w ire les s ra d io c on n ec tio n ca p ab le of in st an tly tra n sm i t tin g a ll Gen er at ed S i g na l s di r ec tly to th e Comm uni ca ti o ns Board m ain ta ined by the Di str i ct forpurposes o f r ec ei ving, i den ti fy i nga nd ins ta nt l y t r an smi tti ng sai d G ener ate d Si gnal s bywir el ess r adio di re ct c on n ec tio n to D u -C om m . Sa id G en er at ed Sign als sh al lb e de l i ve r ed di r ec tly to the Di st r i ct ’ s Comm uni cati ons Board by the Ow ner’ s al ar m co m pany by the m etho d contem pla ted byS ecti on 3. 1 here of, o r by such al ternate m etho d as m ay be a p p roved by the Chi ef ofthe Dist ri ct’ s F i re Pre venti on Burea u (“B u re au C h ief” ) u p on ap p lica tio n as p ro vid ed in Se cti on 3
. 2, wh i ch sai d app ro valshal lnot be unne c e s s a r i l y wi thh e l d. A l lA ffecte d Proper ti es sh allbe equi pp ed w i th wi r el es s r adi o t r an smi tt er s ca p abl e o fs en di ng G en erated Si gn als throu gh a Licen sed A larm C om p an y’s w ire les s ra d io n et w or k, as se t fo rt h in Se c tio n 3.1 h er eo f, w h ich n et w or k sh all b e d ire c tly c o nn e c t e d t o the Di s t r i c t ’ s Co mm un i c a t i o ns Bo a r d. Sai d w i re l ess tran sm i tte rs shal lea ch have at l eas t 60 h ou rs of secon d ary p ow er. The Dist ri ct c annot re q uir e the al ar m co m panie s t o tr an sm it s ig n a ls th ro u gh a w ire les s n et w or k “ d ire c tly42 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981

c o nn e c t e d t o the Di s t r i c t ’ s Co mm un i c a t i o ns Bo a r d” be c a u s e S t a t i o n 3 d o e s n o t c o mply wi th th e C o d e . The Dist ri ct a l so c an n ot re quir e a l ar m co m panie s t o use i ts w i re l ess r adio networkexcl usi vel y, as thatnetworkr el i es o n t he receiver at Station 3. M oreover, the D istri ct’s w i re l ess networki s co m patibl e with onl y o ne ty pe of wi r e l e s s r a d i o t r a ns m i t t e r . S e e C o v e n y a t3 7 6 , 4 3 9
. As we disc ussed abo ve, r equi ring a speci fi c ty pe oftr ansm i tte r r ai ses s ubs ta nt i ala nt i trus t i ss ue s. Butb ec au se we fi nd that the Di str i ct c an no l onge r oper ate S tat i on 3 o r re quir e s i gnal s t o be t ra nsm i tte d thro ugh i t, we need not re so lve th at iss u e n ow . 

### < Se c tio n 2. 5 i s s tr uck in i ts enti re ty, as the Dist ri ct is no t per m i tt ed to o per at e i ts “ Comm uni ca ti o ns Board, ” i.e. , S tat i on 3
. 

### < Se cti on 2
. 6 i s s tr uck. T o t h e ext en t tha t the fees D u-C om m assess es are d erivative fees th at th e D istri ct w ou ld not hav e the aut hori ty to ass es s on i ts own , and beca use the Di str i ct c annot as se ss f ees f o rfi r e al ar m s i g na l i nga nd moni to r i ng, DuC om m c a nn ot asses s su ch fees on the D istri ct’s beh alf

. Se e ADT I

, 672 F. 3d at 504- 05.



### < I n sec ti on 3
. 1, al lte xt f ol l owing “A l lG en er ate d Si gnal s s hal lbe tr ansm i tte d thro ugh a w i re l ess ra dio networko perat ed and m ai ntai ned by a L ice n se d A lar m C om p an y,” is st ru c k. The Dist ri ct c annot re quir e the al ar m co m p ani es to co nne ctt o S ta ti o n 3 , whi chr en der s th e r es t o fthe l an g ua g e ab o uta cc es s to the b o ar d a nd a ppl i ca ti o ns f orsuch a cces s s up er fl uous.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 43



### < Se cti on 3
. 2 i s s tr uck in i ts enti re ty. N o approval proce ss i s necess ar y because th e D istri ct i s no t per m i tt ed to re qui r e di r ec t co nne ct i o n t o the b o a r d a tS t a t i o n 3 o rt o D u - C o mm. Give n the seve rabi l i ty cl ause i n sec ti on 8. 1, al lo ther port ions ofthe new o rdi nance m ay re m ai n. They ne ed not be s tr uck, th ough m any wil ll i kely b e r endered s om ew hat i rr el evantgi ven what re m ai ns o fthe or dinance. S u b s t a nt i v e l y, th e e s s e n c e o fw h a tr e ma i n s i s th a tc o mm er ci alpro pertyo w ners ar e r equi re d to use wir el ess tr ansm i ssi on thro ugh pri vate al ar m co m panie s.

F. Rem a inin g Issu es W e hav e rej ecte d t h e District’s and Ch icago M etro’s pri m ar y a rgum ents about the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co m pli ance wi th ADT I

, Du-Com m ’ s invol vem ent, and the new o r di na nc e. I n addi ti o n to th es e ar g um en ts , th e Di st r i cta nd Ch i cago M etr o com pla i n about num er ous o theras pects of th e i nj unc ti o n. W e ha ve c o ns i der ed th ei ra r g um en ts a nd fi nd l i ttl e m er i t. M any of thei r ar gum ents ar e undevel oped and unsup port ed. S ee U nite d S ta te s v. B erkow itz , 92 7 F
. 2d 1 3 7 6 , 1 3 8 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ W e r e pe a t e dl y h a v e ma de clear th at p erfun ctory an d u nd evelop ed argum en ts .
. . are wai ve d ( ev enwher e th o se a r gum en ts r ai se c o ns ti tu
ti onali ssues )

. ”)

. But a few o fthei r ar gu m ents ra i se va l i d c o nc erns wi thth e inj unc ti o n, s o we m o di fy the i nj uncti on in a few m i norr espect s t o acco unt f or th o s e a r g u me n t s , i n add i t i o n t o th e mo d i fi c a t i o n s we m ade to the 2012 o rdi nance.44 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 1. R efun ds to Su bscribers Fir st, w e a gr ee th at p ar ag ra p h 17of th e inju n c t i o n is pr o bl ematic. I t r equi r es the Di st r i ctt o “ r efund t o the affecte d C om m er ci alA ccounts al lm oni es col l ect ed by [ the] Dis tr i ct for fi re al ar m m oni tor i ng since the i ncepti on ofth e O rd i nance. ” M PI¶ 1 7. Thi s i s probl em ati c be cause the s ubscr iber s who w oul d rec ei ve such r efu n d s are not parti es to thi s c as e. Se e, e . g. , M cKe nzi ev. Ci ty of Chi cago , 118 F. 3d 552, 55 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( “The fund am en talpro bl em w ith thi s i nj unc ti o n i s th atpl aint i ff s l ac ks ta ndi ng t o s eek — and the di str i ct c ourtther ef or e l acks autho ri ty to gr ant — r e l i e fth a tb e n e fi t s th i r d p a r t i e s . ” )

. Wh i l e we r e a l i z e i tma y s e e m m o r e e ffi c i e n tt o de a lw i th c u s t o mer s’ p ot en tia l cla im s a ga in stth e D ist ric t in th is pr o ce e d i n g, th e qu e s t i o n o fwh e th e ra n d wh a ta mo unt of re fu n d s s u c h su b sc rib er s s h ou ld rec eiv e is su fficie n tly c om p l ex thati t warr ants m or e a tte nti on a nd pro cess than we can gi ve i t o n thi s r eco rd. Fo r exam ple , the subscriber s who pai d fo r the Di str i ct’ s m oni tor i ng se rv i ces atl ea str ec ei ve d thos e m o ni to r i ngs er vi ce s, e ve n i fthe Dist ri c t was notper m i tte d by s tatute t o provi de them and even i fthe quali ty and rel i abi l i ty w er e w or se than p ro m ised

. S o the s ubscr iber s m ay not be e nti tl ed to a com ple te re fund , but rath er t he r efund m ay need to be m iti gat ed to a cc o untf o rthe r ea so nabl e va l ue o fthe al ar m m onitoring se rv i ces the Di str i ct a ctual l y pr ovi ded th em d u rin g th at tim e. C f. 26 W illist on on C on tr ac ts § 68 :1 ( 4th e d.) ( aw ar d fo r re aso nabl e v al ue o fse rv i ces re nd er ed i s per m i tt ed unde runj us t en r i ch m en t, e ve n whe n “the contr act i s unenf or ceabl e be c au se of a l ack ofcapaci ty of one of th e pa rties”).N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 45 2. Adopt i ng t heCode Para gr aph 9 o fthe i nj uncti on r equi re s the Di str i ct to “adopt th e c u rrent ver si on o fthe N FPA Code” and to “a do pt su chne werv er si o ns whenthe y are i ss ue d. ” M PI ¶ 9. W e do not see a l ega l basi s f or such a re q uir em ent. Rather, cour ts have ackno w l edged w hi ch ver si on of N F PA cod es muni ci pal i ti es a do pt wi th o utc o m m en ting o n th e pr o pr i ety o f ha ving ado pte d a ve r si o n fr o m years p as t. Se e, e.g ., A ll iance for M en ta ll y Ill v. City of Napervil le, 92 3 F . Su p p . 105 7, 10 62 (N .D . I ll. 19 96 ) (n ot in g “ N ap er ville ad op ts th e 1991 ve rsion of th e L ife Safety Cod e (“LSC ”), pu bl i shed by the Nati onalFi re Pro tect i on Associ ati on ( “N FPA ”) ”) , abroga ted o n other gr ounds by Hem isph ere B ldg

. C o . v . Villa ge o f R ich to n P a rk, 17 1 F

. 3d 437 ( 7th Cir

. 1 9 9 9 )

. Th e Co de i t s e l f i nc l ud e s no r e qu i r e men t t hat muni c i pa l i t i e s a do ptthe mo s tr e c e ntv e r s i on. I t s “ Co de A d op tio n R eq u ire m en ts ” s ec tio n st at es m er ely th at “[t ]h is Code shal lbe adm i ni ste re d and enf or ced by the a uthor i ty ha ving j urisd iction de signat ed by the govern in g aut hori t y . ” N F P A 7 2 § 1

. 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( l a n g u a g e r e m a in s s a me thro ugh 201 3 ve rs i on)

. W i thout a l ega lbas i s for re quir i ng tha t th e D istr i ct a dopt the m ostr ecentve rs i on o fthe C od e a nd c o nt i nue t o do s o wi the ve r y r ev i si o n, pa r a g r a ph9 o fthe i nj un c t i o n mus tb e r e mov e d.

3. Tim i ng W e r a i s e a fi n a lc o n c e r n wi th th e mo d i fi e d p e r ma n e nt i nj u n ct i o n — th at i ts du ra ti on i s ind efi ni te. I t i s o fco urse a per m anent i nj u n c ti on, but w e ca n eas i l y i m agine that atso m e p o i n ti n th e fu t u r e , th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s g i v i ng46 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 ri se to the inj uncti on w ill c hange and the inj uncti on m ay ther ef or e a l so need to change o r m ay no l on ger be necess ar y. The di str i ct c ourtr eta i ns t h e pow erto m odi fy the i nj uncti on furtheri fthe circum sta nces so w ar ra n t. G iv en th at th e inj u n c tio n ad d re ss es th is particula r ti m e, curr ent t echnol ogy, and a c urr ent s et of m ar ketpro bl em s, we are co nfi dent t h at the dist ri ct co ur t wi l l k ee p th e do o r o pen to ne ce ss ary m od ifi ca ti o ns i n th e publ i c inter est, wh i l e k eepi ng in m i nd the them es and tensi on underl yi ng thi s ca se: ba l anci ng a m unici pal en ti ty ’ s l eg i ti m at e r egu la to r y a utho r i tywhi l e pr o te ct i ng th e m ar ke t fro m u n law fu l m on op olis tic ac tiv ity
.
III
. Concl us i on The m odi fi ed perm anent i nj uncti on g ener al l y c om port s wi th ADT Iand ap p rop ria t e ly enj oins th e D istri ct’s acti vi ty w i th r ega rd to al ar m m oni tor in g in the Dist ri ct. The i nj uncti on m ust be m od ified as not ed abo ve w i th re gar d to the ne w o rdi nance, the subscr iberr efund s, and requir in g the Di str i ct t o adopt a cer tain ver si on o f the NFPA Code. But i t i s o ther w i se a r eas onabl e e xerci se ofthe dist ri ct cour t’ s disc re ti on i n l i ght ofal lthe evi dence, par ti cul ar l y the t es ti m o ny a t th e ev i den ti ary heari ng f ol l owing ADT I
. The i nj unc ti o n i s f o r ce ful, b ut giv en th e D ist ric t’s an d C h ica go M et ro ’s h ist or y of re c alc itr an c e thro ughout thi s l i ti gat i on, the dist ri ct c ourtwas j u st ified in t ak in g s tr on g m ea su re s. A FFIRM ED AS M OD IF IE D .N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 47 A P P E N D IX R el eva nt Port i ons ofN FP A 72 ( 2002 ) ( al lo th erpo r ti o ns o mi t t e d) Ch apte r1: A dm i nist r at i on 1.7 Cod e A d op ti on R eq u ir em en ts
. Thi s Code s ha l lbe adm i ni ste re d a nd enf or ced by the author i ty havin g jur i sdict i on desi gnate d by the go verni ng autho ri ty. * * * * Ch a pt e r3 : De f i ni t i o ns 3.3 .19 2 S u b s id iary S tati on . A subsi diary s tat i on i s a norm al l y una tt en ded l o ca ti o n tha t i s r emot e fr o m the su per vi sings ta ti o n a nd i s l i nk ed bya c o m m uni cati o ns channel ( s) t o the s up er vi si ng st ati on. Inter connect i on o f si gn als on o ne o r m or e t ra nsm i ssi on channel s fro m pro tect ed prem i ses with a co m m unica ti ons ch annel ( s) to th e su per vi sings ta ti o n i s per f o r m ed atthi s l o ca ti o n. 3 .3 .19 3 S u p erv is in g S tati on . A f a c i l i ty tha tr e c e i v es sig n als an d atw h ich p er so n n el a re in a tt e n d an c e a t a ll ti m es to re spond to these si gnal s. * * * * C h a p t e r8 : S u p e rv i s i n gS t a t i o n F i r e Al a r m S y s t e ms 8. 2 Fi r e Alarm Syst em s f or Centr al Stat i on Servi ce. Fi re al ar m sy ste m s use d to provi de centr alst ati on s er vi ce shal lco m plywith the ge nera lr equi re m ents and the use re quir em ents ofS ecti on 8
. 2. * * * *48 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 8. 2. 5 Faci l i t i es. 8.2 .5.1 Th e cen tral station bu il d ing or that p ortion of a bui l ding o ccupie d by a cent ra lst ati on s hal lco nfo rm to th e con stru ction, fire p rotect io n, restri cted acces s, em erg en cyl i g ht i ng, a nd po werf ac i l i ti es r equir ement s o fthe lat es t e d itio n of A N SI/U L 82 7, Standard for Safety C ent ralSta tio n A la rm Servi ces . 8. 2. 5.2 S ubs i di ary s ta ti o n b ui l di ng s o rtho se po r ti o ns of b u ild in gs oc c u p ied by su b sid iar y s ta tio n s s h all conf or m to the const ructi on, fi re pro tect i on, r est ri cted acces s, em er gencyl i ghti ng, and pow erf aci l i ti es re quir em en ts of th e la te sted itio n of A N SI/U L 82 7, St andar d f or Sa fety C entra l-Sta tio n A la rm Servi ces . 8.2 .5.2.1 Al lint rus i o n, fi r e, po wer, a nd e nv i r o nm entalco ntrol s yst em s forsubsi diary s tat i on bui l dings shal lbe m oni tor ed by the c entr al s tat i on in acco rdance w i th 8. 2. 5. 8. 2. 5. 2. 2 T h e s ubsi diary f aci l i ty shal lbe i nspected at l ea stmonthl y b y c en tr als ta ti o n pe r so nne lf o rthe pu rpos e o fve ri fyi ng the o perat i on o fal lsuperv i sed equi p m en t, a l lt el eph o ne s, a l lb at te r y c o ndi ti o ns , a nd al lfl uid l eve l s o fbat ter i es and gener ato rs . 8. 2.5.2.3 In the e ve nto fthe f ai l ur e o fe qui pm en t atthe su bs i di ar y s tati o n o rthe c o m m uni ca ti o ns c ha nne lt o the c en tr al s ta tio n, a ba c ku p sh all b e o p e r a t i o n al w ith in 90 seco nd s. 8.2 .5.2.4 W i th r espect t o 8. 2. 5. 2. 3, r est or ati on o fa f ai l ed unitshal lbe acco m pli shed w i thi n 5 days

.N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 49 8.2 .5.2.5 Ea chc o m m uni ca tio ns c ha nne ls ha l lb e co ntinuousl y s up er vi sed be tw een the subsi diary s tat i on an d the c en tr als ta ti o n. 8.2 .5.2.6 W hen the com m unica ti ons channelbetw een th e su bs i di ary s ta ti o n a nd the s upe r vi sings ta ti o n f ai l s, the co m m uni ca ti o ns s hall be swi tc he d t o a n a l te r na te pa th

. Publi c s wi t c he d t e l e ph o ne n e t wo r kf a c i l i t i e s s ha l lbe us ed o nl y a s ana l te r na te pa th

. 8.2 .5.2.7In th e s u b s i d i a r y st a t i o n, th e r e s h a l lb e a c o mm u n ica tio n s p at h, su c h as a ce llu lar te lep h on e, th at is ind ep en d en t o f th e t eleph one cable betw een the su bsid iary station and the serv ing w ire cen ter. 8.2 .5.2.8 A pl an o fact i on t o provi de f orr est or ati on o f ser vi ces speci fi ed by thi s Code s hal lexi st f or each subsi di ary s ta ti o n. * * * * 8 . 4 Re mo t e S u p e rv i s i n gS t a t i o n F i r e Al a r m S y s t e ms 8. 4. 2* Faci l i t i es 8. 4. 2.1 Fi r e al ar m s y st ems u ti l i zingr emot e su per vi sing station conn ection s sha lltrans m it fir e a larm and sup erv i s o r y s i g na l s t o a f a c i l i t y mee t i ng the r e qu i r e men t s o f ei ther8. 4. 2. 1. 1 o r 8. 4. 2. 1. 2. 8.4 .2.1.1 Fi re al ar m and sup er vi sory s i gnal s s hal lbe per m i tt ed to b e r ec ei ve d atthe publ i c fi r e se r vi ce c o m m uni cation s ce nt er, a t th e fi r e st at i o n, o ra t th e g o ve r nm entalag en cy that has the publ i c r esponsibi l i ty f or t a k i ngp r e s c r ib e d a c t i o n t o e ns ur e r espo ns e u po n r e c e i pt of a fire a lar m sign al.50 N os. 12

- 2925 and 12- 2981 8.4 .2.1.2 * W he r e per m i tt ed by the au th o r i tyha ving j uri sdic ti on, fi re al ar m and supervi sory s i gnal s s hal lbe perm i tte d to be r ecei ved at an a l ternate l oca ti on a pp ro ved bythe a utho r i tyha vingj ur i sdi ct i o n. 8. 4. 3 Equipm ent and Per sonnel 8. 4. 3. 4 Re t r a ns mi s s i o n o fa n a l a r m s i g na l, i fr e qu i r e d, shal lbe by one ofthe f ol l owing m et h od s, wh i ch appear ind es c en d in g or d er of p re fer en c e a s fo llow s: . . . 8 .4 .3.5.1 The r em ote superv i si ng st ati on s hal lhave not l ess than tw o tr ai ned and com petent perso ns o n duty at th e rem ote su p ervising station a t a lltim es to ens ure dispos i ti on o fsi gnal s in accordance w i th the r equi re m ents of8. 4. 4. 8 . 4 . 4 Ope r a t i o ns 8.4 .4.1 I fthe re m ote s u p ervi si ng st ati on i s a t a l oca ti on oth er than the p ub li c fi re service com m un ications cen ter, al ar m si gnal s s hal lbe i m m edi ate l y r etr ansm itt ed to th e pu bli c fi re service com m un ications cen ter. R ef er ences A . 8. 4. 2. 1. 2 A l i ste d centr alst ati on m i ght b e co nsi dered an accep table alternat e location for receip t of fi re alarm and supervi sory s i gnal s.

7- 31- 13