Lessing E. Gold

In a recent case before the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, a motion for preliminary injunction by an alarm company against the defendants was denied. 

In a recent case in the state of New York, an issue arose regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). The defendants were in the business of installing, servicing and monitoring fire alarm systems. The plaintiff sought to purchase the defendants’ business pursuant to an APA, which was signed by the parties.

There was great case out of the state of New York in which the plaintiff alarm company contracted with the defendant to inspect and maintain the defendant’s fire alarm system for an initial period of five years. Approximately six months into the contract, the defendant terminated the contract. The plaintiff alarm company commenced an action alleging that the defendant, by its premature termination, breached the contract. The alarm company pursued damages under the contract’s liquidated damage clause.

A case recently arose in the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in Missouri where the defense was they were protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The medical alert monitoring industry has had a great deal of difficulty over the past few years because of companies engaging in “robo” calling — utilizing improper names, misrepresentation and other illegal and illicit activities. It is frequently difficult to track the callers because calls are made from remote locations and are consistently changing. In order to try to stop these types of calls, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida came out with a ruling granting a permanent injunction against one of the violators.

An interesting decision came out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that involved a liquidated damage clause. The plaintiff purchased an annual subscription to a suite of software services called the “Adobe Creative Cloud” (referred to hereafter as the Creative Cloud) for $49.00 per month from the defendant, a multi-national software maker.

An interesting case involving disclosures required by a manufacturer was recently decided in the State of California. The plaintiff in the action against the defendant, a manufacturer and seller of fire safety products, claimed that the defendant failed to disclose the hazards of ionized and photoelectric smoke alarms (smoke detectors) that they manufactured and sold.

 A case against an alarm company in Connecticut dealt with the allegation of fraud. The issue of fraud can be closely analogous to that of gross negligence so the case is relevant for discussion.