ADT Services AG et al v. Brady et al
Filing
174
OPINION AND ORDER denying 171 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland on 4/9/2013. (lgw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ADT SERVICES, AG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 10-2197
v.
THOMAS BRADY, et al.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The home security company ADT sued a competitor, The Alarm Company, and
some of its principals and employees (together, “The Alarm Company”) for allegedly
stealing, by elaborate subterfuge, ADT customers. The Alarm Company
counterclaimed for breach of contract and for “libel, slander, [and] trade disparagement.”
ADT moved to dismiss. A January 2011 order dismissed the claim for breach of
contract but allowed the other claim, construed as a defamation claim, to proceed. A
year later the action was, within three months, twice assigned to a new judge; and ten
months after that, in January 2013, ADT amended the complaint. In its new answer,
The Alarm Company claimed to “fully incorporate” their counterclaims. (Dkt. # 170
at 23.) After ADT again moved to dismiss, however, The Alarm Company clarified that
they renew only the defamation claim. The issue at hand is whether the new judge
should dismiss the defamation claim or instead follow the previous judge’s January
2011 order. The matter is fully briefed, and no hearing is needed. See W.D. Tenn.
LR 7.2(d).
A district judge may typically reconsider an interlocutory order at any time.
United States v. Dunbar, 357 F.3d 582, 592-93 (6th Cir. 2004), vacated on other
grounds, 125 S.Ct. 1029 (2005); 18 Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.21[1]
(3d ed. 2012). There is much to be said, however, for avoiding “the agitation of settled
issues,” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 816 (1988), and
adhering to a “simple principle of disciplined self-consistency,” 18B Wright & Miller, et
al., Federal Practice & Procedure Juris. § 4478 (2d ed. 2012), during an action. In
particular, a new judge should not allow a party to use the old judge’s departure as a
chance to put to a general test the body of decided matters. Unless the moving party
raises a plain error (or, perhaps, a pressing issue, such as jurisdiction), the previous
judge’s rulings should govern. See Moses v. Bus. Card Express, 929 F.2d 1131, 1137
(6th Cir. 1991). This discretionary respect for the “law of the case” promotes efficient
and predictable litigation.
Had it believed that the previous judge plainly erred, ADT could have moved for
reconsideration of the January 2011 order. Had it moved for reconsideration, the
motion probably would have failed. The argument ADT raises now—that the main
allegedly defamatory statement was not directed at The Alarm Company—first appears
in ADT’s reply defending its first motion to dismiss. An argument introduced by a reply
is waived. E.g. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008). And
in fact ADT never moved for reconsideration. It looks, therefore, like ADT raises not a
plain error but, at most, a potentially debatable issue, likely waived, for which it wants a
fresh opinion. That is not enough to upset the law of the case. See Moses, 929 F.2d at
1137.
2
Moreover, ADT’s argument is unimpressive. An ADT attorney said in a press
release that ADT should “aggressively pursue cases against people who lie, mislead
and harass unsuspecting victims.” (Dkt. # 22, Ex. B.) “Read in context,” ADT says, the
statement does not address The Alarm Company. (Dkt. # 171 at 2.) In its brief,
however, ADT alters the context of the attorney’s statement by removing its quote
marks and attaching it to the preceding paragraph. From these redactions arises a
manufactured sense that the statement merely builds on the paragraph before it.
Actually, the attorney’s statement is the press release’s last sentence and, “read in
context,” it appears to summarize the article—which is wholly about The Alarm
Company. Even if one accepted ADT’s reasoning (while rejecting its editing), its
argument still wobbles. The paragraph before the attorney’s statement reads, “Last
summer, ADT announced it was initiating legal action against individual salespeople
who commit deceptive sales practices. ADT has received complaints from consumers
in at least 22 states.” (Dkt. # 22, Ex. B.) This paragraph follows five paragraphs
discussing the alleged perfidy of The Alarm Company. The idea conveyed is that The
Alarm Company comprises some of the deceptive salespeople being sued and,
therefore, that The Alarm Company employs some of the people who, according to
ADT’s attorney, “lie, mislead, and harass.” Indeed, the only specific “people” in the
article who might “lie, mislead, and harass” work for The Alarm Company. ADT
identifies no plain error.
The defamation claim has its weaknesses. Most prominently, although several
witnesses accuse The Alarm Company of guile and deceit, no allegation in the
counterclaim explains why ADT’s attorney, in making his statement, could not rely on
3
the witnesses. This is a point ADT displayed to the previous judge but, again, only in a
reply. ADT does not address the point now, except to the extent it purports to raise all
its old arguments by reference. Proposing to “incorporate” something “by reference” is
often—as The Alarm Company showed earlier—both insouciant and imprudent, see,
e.g., Northland Ins. Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 327 F.3d 448, 452-53 (6th Cir. 2003),
and it is a useless device here. The law of the case is not open to omnibus review.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that ADT’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 171] is
DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 9, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, April 9, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\10-2197TN.ADT.Dismiss.ckb.wpd
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?