Vivint, Inc. v. Northstar Alarm Servs., LLC

Decision Date08 March 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 2:16-cv-00106-JNP-EJF
PartiesVIVINT, INC., a Utah corporation, Plaintiff, v. NORTHSTAR ALARM SERVICES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

District Judge Jill N. Parrish

This matter is before the court on three motions for partial summary judgment: (1) Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Vivint's Second, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action, and limiting damages; (2) Vivint's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fifth Cause of Action for Interference with Economic Relations; and (3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Vivint's First Cause of Action. The court heard oral argument on the motions on December 3, 2018. Following argument, the court took the motions under advisement. Also before the court are two motions filed after the hearing: (1) the Stipulated Motion to Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment on Vivint's First Cause of Action and to Dismiss without Prejudice Vivint's First Cause of Action and (2) the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss, in Part, Vivint's Fifth Cause of Action.

BACKGROUND

Vivint and NorthStar are both in the business of marketing, selling, and installing electronic home automation and security systems. As two of the more established companies in the industry, Vivint and NorthStar have been competing against each other since 2001.

Companies in the home alarm and automation industry market their products and services in a variety of ways, including door-to-door direct sales through company sales representatives. In fact, a majority of Vivint's and NorthStar's sales are generated through door-to-door or direct-to-home sales. Because of the intense competition between these home security companies, the two companies solicit many of the same customers. Vivint alleges that in the course of this competition, NorthStar's representatives have engaged in a campaign to target Vivint's customers, improperly soliciting them through false statements and misrepresentations constituting false and deceptive sales practices that have damaged Vivint's reputation. Vivint has identified and presented evidence of 216 individual Vivint customers who experienced deceptive sales practices by NorthStar representatives between 2012 and 2015.

In late 2015, Vivint sued NorthStar in Utah state court. NorthStar promptly removed the action to federal court. Vivint amended its complaint shortly thereafter. Vivint, in its amended complaint ("Amended Complaint"), alleges that NorthStar has engaged in a campaign to damage Vivint's reputation and steal its customers. Vivint's Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) declaratory relief, (2) deceptive trade practices in violation of the Utah Truth in Advertising Act; (3) violation of the Lanham Act, (4) unfair competition, (5) intentional interference with customer contracts, and (6) injunctive relief. NorthStar moved for partial summary judgment on the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action. Vivint moved for partial summary judgment on the fifth cause of action. Following a hearing on the motions, the parties stipulated to dismiss the first cause of action for declaratory relief without prejudice and withdraw NorthStar's motion for summary judgment as to the first cause of action, leaving at issue only the second through sixth causes of action.

ANALYSIS
A. LEGAL STANDARD

"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 628 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). This requires that all reasonable inferences be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Sports Unltd., Inc. v. Lankford Enters., Inc., 275 F.3d 996, 999 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). A dispute of fact is genuine only if "a reasonable [trier of fact] could find in favor of the nonmoving party on the issue." Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 743 F.3d 708, 712 (10th Cir. 2014). "At the summary judgment stage, the judge's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter." Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & Cty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "Nonetheless, '[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,' summary judgment in favor of the moving party is proper." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

B. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

On January 9, 2019, Vivint and NorthStar filed a Stipulated Motion to Withdraw Motion for Summary Judgment on Vivint's First Cause of Action and to Dismiss without Prejudice Vivint's First Cause of Action. The court GRANTS the motion. Vivint's First Cause of Action is dismissed without prejudice and NorthStar's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the First Cause of Action is denied as moot.

C. SECOND THROUGH FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION

NorthStar seeks partial summary judgment on Vivint's Second through Fifth Causes of Action. On the Second and Third counts, NorthStar seeks summary judgment on substantive grounds and alternatively seeks to limit the damages available based upon Vivint's alleged failure to properly disclose its damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A). On the Fourth and Fifth counts, NorthStar seeks summary judgment only on the issue of damages.1

1. DAMAGES GENERALLY

For each claim, NorthStar alleges that Vivint has failed to disclose its claimed damages with the specificity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), Vivint should be precluded from offering any evidence of the damages that it failed to disclose because its failure was neither substantially justified nor harmless. In response, Vivint argues that it complied with its discovery obligations and, alternatively, that any failure to disclose its damages was harmless or substantially justified. For each cause of action for which the damages disclosures are challenged, the court will first address the sufficiency of the disclosures and then analyze whether any failure to disclose was substantially justified or harmless.

a. Sufficiency

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires the parties to disclose "without awaiting a discovery request":

a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered.

In the course of its initial disclosures ("Initial Disclosures") and seven supplements ("First Supplement," "Second Supplement" . . . "Seventh Supplement"), Vivint disclosed seven categories of damages labeled as follows: 1) Utah Truth in Advertising Act; 2) Lanham Act; 3) Actual damages: a) Credits Given to Vivint Customers, b) Lost Reinstallation Fees, c) Lost Reoccurring Monthly Rate, d) New Equipment Installed, and e) the Value of Vivint Customers' Accounts who Cancelled; 4) Goodwill and Reputation Damages; 5) Vivint's Fourth Cause of Action; 6) Vivint's Fifth Cause of Action; and 7) Vivint's attorney fees and costs.2 NorthStar argues that Vivint failed to properly disclose its 1) UTAA damages, 2) Lanham Act damages, 3) the value of Vivint customer accounts as a basis for Actual Damages, 4) Goodwill and Reputation damages, 5) Vivint's Fifth Cause of Action damages, and 6) Attorney fees and costs. For purposes of deciding the sufficiency of Vivint's disclosures, the court will refer to the most recent supplement for each of the categories.3 The Fifth Supplement contains the most recent disclosures of all the claimed damages except for the Lanham Act damages, which were most recently disclosed in the Seventh Supplement.

b. Substantially Justified or Harmless

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), a party that violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by failing to disclose certain information is precluded from using that information in motions or at trial, unless the failure to disclose was "substantially justified or is harmless." "[T]he determination of whether a Rule 26(a) . . . violation is justified or harmless is entrusted to the broad discretion of the district court." HCG Platinum, LLC v. Preferred Prod. Placement Corp., 873 F.3d 1191, 1200 (10th Cir.2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Neiberger v. Fed Ex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 1184, 1191-92 (10th Cir. 2009)). The Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) inquiry consists of several factors including: "(1) the prejudice or surprise to the party against whom the testimony is offered; (2) the ability of the party to cure the prejudice; (3) the extent to which introducing such testimony would disrupt the trial; and (4) the moving party's bad faith or willfulness." HCG Platinum, LLC, 873 F.3d at 1200 (quoting Woodworker's Supply, Inc. v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 170 F.3d 985, 993) (10th Cir. 1999)). "[W]here the exclusion of evidence under Rule 37(c)(1) has the necessary effect of a dismissal, . . . district courts should, in conjunction with the traditional Woodworker's inquiry, carefully explore and consider the efficacy of less drastic alternatives." HCG Platinum, LLC, 873 F.3d at 1206. Dismissal of a cause of action is an "extreme sanction" ordinarily reserved "for cases involving bad faith or willfulness or instances where less severe sanctions would obviously prove futile." Id. The court must review...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT