Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Impulse Alarm LLC’s Counterclaim
Impulse Alarm’s answer to ADT’s complaint and its twelve-count counterclaim, covering fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, defamation, and more.
Court Filings
702-330-3521Impulse Fights Back Against ADT
Read the filings online, search the full text, or download a copy for your records.
Impulse Alarm’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Impulse moves for summary judgment on all of ADT’s claims, arguing ADT cannot establish any net contractual debt because the Dealer Agreement requires the parties’ payment obligations to be offset first.
ADT’s Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
ADT’s opposition to Impulse’s motion for summary judgment, disputing that its chargeback claims are premature and defending its breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief claims.
Declaration of Daniel E. Rohner in Support of ADT’s Response
Declaration of ADT’s counsel Daniel E. Rohner in support of ADT’s opposition to summary judgment, attaching excerpts of ADT’s Dealer Guidelines. Transcribed from the scanned filing for online reading.
Impulse Alarm’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Impulse’s reply in support of summary judgment, arguing that nothing in the Dealer Agreement or ADT’s Guidelines makes termination forfeit Revenue Sharing, so ADT cannot establish the net debt it sued to collect. It also points to ADT’s March 13, 2025 letter stating ADT would withhold revenue sharing fees.