The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California recently ordered the preliminary certification of a conditional class action settlement involving various California wage and hours laws.
A recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire did not involve an alarm company, but relied on an alarm company decision in granting a motion for summary judgment.
In Michigan, a group of plaintiffs filed an action against the defendant security company claiming that the security company violated the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay the plaintiffs time and a half for the time they worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The defendant security company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.
A question that frequently arises is the rights of a tenant against an alarm company where the tenant has no agreement with the alarm company but the alarm company provides service pursuant to an agreement with the landlord.
A suit was recently filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing a number of alarm companies of infringing on a patent described as “303 patent.”
An interesting case just arose in the state of Pennsylvania in a rather complicated set of facts. An employee of the alarm company was testing a smoke detector for a client.
A case recently came before the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma involving a PERS system. The estate of decedent filed a claim against the manufacturer of the PERS system and the company that leased and monitored the system in the District Court of Grady County, Okla.
RSS