Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 1 of 56 PageID #: 7
`
`Service of Process
`Transmittal
`08/04/2021
`CT Log Number 540023117
`
`TO:
`
`RE:
`
`FOR:
`
`Jenny Mccarley
`Monitronics International, Inc.
`1990 Wittington Place
`Farmers Branch, TX 75234
`
`Process Served in Missouri
`
`MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC  (Domestic State: DE)
`
`ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF LEGAL PROCESS RECEIVED BY THE STATUTORY AGENT OF THE ABOVE COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
`
`TITLE OF ACTION:
`
`ARLIE TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`PLTF. vs. SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., DFTS. // TO: MONITRONICS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Name discrepancy noted.
`
`DOCUMENT(S) SERVED:
`
`--
`
`COURT/AGENCY:
`
`None Specified
`Case # 21SLCC03384
`
`ON WHOM PROCESS WAS SERVED:
`
`C T Corporation System, Clayton, MO
`
`DATE AND HOUR OF SERVICE:
`
`By Process Server on 08/04/2021 at 14:54
`
`JURISDICTION SERVED :
`
`APPEARANCE OR ANSWER DUE:
`
`ATTORNEY(S) / SENDER(S):
`
`ACTION ITEMS:
`
`Missouri
`
`None Specified
`
`None Specified
`
`CT has retained the current log, Retain Date: 08/04/2021, Expected Purge Date:
`08/09/2021
`
`Image SOP
`
`Email Notification,  Daisy Xiao  xuxiao@brinkshome.com
`
`Email Notification,  Peggy Carlson  pcarlson@brinkshome.com
`
`Email Notification,  Jenny Mccarley  jmccarley@mymoni.com
`
`REGISTERED AGENT ADDRESS:
`
`C T Corporation System
`120 South Central Avenue
`Clayton, MO 63105
`866-665-5799
`SouthTeam2@wolterskluwer.com
`The information contained in this Transmittal is provided by CT for quick reference only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, and should not otherwise be
`relied on, as to the nature of action, the amount of damages, the answer date, or any other information contained in the included documents. The recipient(s)
`of this form is responsible for reviewing and interpreting the included documents and taking appropriate action, including consulting with its legal and other
`advisors as necessary. CT disclaims all liability for the information contained in this form, including for any omissions or inaccuracies that may be contained
`therein.
`
`Page 1 of  1 / MS
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 2 of 56 PageID #: 8
`
`Wolters Kluwer
`
`PROCESS SERVER DELIVERY DETAILS
`
`Date:
`
`Wed, Aug 4, 2021
`
`Server Name:
`
`Harry Yiatras
`
`Entity Served
`
`Case Number
`
`J urisdiction
`
`MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`21SL-CC03384
`
`MO
`
`111
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 3 of 56 PageID #: 9
`
`IN THE 21ST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI
`
`Judge orDivis ion:
`VIRGINIA W LAY
`Plaintiff/Petitioner:
`ARLIE TUCKER
`
`Defendant/Respondent:
`SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
`Nature of Suit:
`CC Declaratory Judgment
`
`Case Number: 21SL-CC03384
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiffs/Petitioner's Attorney/Address
`TIFFANY MARKO YIATRAS
`CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
`308 HUTCHINSON ROAD
`ELLISVILLE, MO 630112029
`Court Address:
`ST LOUIS COUNTY COURT BUILDING
`105 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE
`CLAYTON, MO 63105
`
`Summons in Civil Case
`The State of Missouri to: moNIMONICS INURNATIO NAL, INC.
`Alias:
`
`C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
`120 SOUTH CENTRAL AVE
`CLAYTON, MO 63105
`
`(Date File Stam
`
`COURT SEAL OF
`
`ST. LOUIS COUNTY
`
`You are summoned to appear before this court and to file your pleading to the petition, a copy of
`which is attached, and to serve a copy of your pleading upon the attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner at the
`above address all within 30 days after receiving this summons, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to
`file your pleading, judgmentby default may be taken against you for the relief demanded in the petition.
`SPECIAL NEEDS: If you have special needs addressed by the Americans With Disabilities Act, please
`notify the Office of the CircuitClerk at 314-615-8029, FAX 314-615-8739,e mail at SLCADA@courts.mo.gov,
`or through Relay Missouri by dialing 711 or 800-735-2966, at least three business days i advance of the court
`proceeding.
`
`29-JUL-2021
`Date
`Further Information:
`AW
`
`Cle• rk
`
`Sheriffs or Server's Return
`Note to se rvi n g officer: Summons should be returned to the court within thirty days after the date of issue.
`
`I certify that I have served the above summons by: (check one)
`O delivering a copy of the summons and a copy of the petition to the Defendant/Respondent.
`O leaving a copy of the summons and a copy of the petition at the dwelling place or usual abode of the Defendant/Respondent with
` a person of the Defendant's/Respondent's family over the age of 15 years who
`permanently resides with the Defendant/Respondent.
`O (for service on a corporation) delivering a copy of the summons and a copy of the petition to
`
` (name)
`
`O other
`
`Served at
`
`(title).
`
`(address)
`
`in (County/City of St. Louis), MO, on
`
`(date) at (time).
`
`Signature of Sheriff or Server
`Printed Name of Sheriff or Server
`Must be sworn before a notary public ifnot served by an authorized officer:
`
`(Seal)
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me on
`
`My commission expires:
`Date
`
`(date).
`
`Notary Public
`
`OSCA (7-99) SM30 (SMCC) For Court Use Only: Document ID#21-SMCC-6549 I
`
`(Civil Procedure Form No. 1, Rules 54.01 — 54.05,
`54.13, and 54.20; 506.120 — 506.140, and 506.150 RSMo
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 4 of 56 PageID #: 10
`
`Sheriff's Fees, if applicable
`Summons
`Non Est
`Sheriff's Deputy Salary
`Supplemental Surcharge 10.00
`Mileage
`Total
`A copy of the summons and a copy of the petition must be served on each Defendant/Respondent. For methods of service on all classes of
`suits, see Supreme Court Rule 54.
`
` miles@ $.
`
`per mile)
`
`OSCA (7-99) SM30 (SMCC) For Court Use Only: Document ID# 21-SMCC-6549 2 (Civil Procedure Form No. 1, Rules 54.01 —54.05,
`54.13, and 54.20; 506.120 — 506.140, and 506.150 RSMo
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 5 of 56 PageID #: 11
`
`THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI
`
`Twenty First Judicial Circuit
`
`NOTICE OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES
`
`Purpose of Notice
`
`As a party to a lawsuit in this court, you have the right to have a judge or jury decide your case.
`However, most lawsuits are settled by the parties before a trial takes place. This is often true even when
`the parties initially believe that settlement is not possible. A settlement reduces the expense and
`inconvenience of litigation. It also eliminates any uncertainty about the results of a trial.
`
`Alternative dispute resolution services and procedures are available that may help the parties settle
`their lawsuit faster and at less cost. Often such services are most effective in reducing costs if used early
`in the course of a lawsuit. Your attorney can aid you in deciding whether and when such services would be
`helpful in your case.
`
`Your Rights and Obligations in Court Are Not Affected By This Notice
`
`You may decide to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure if the other parties to your case
`agree to do so. In some circumstances, a judge of this court may refer your case to an alternative dispute
`resolution procedure described below. These procedures are not a substitute for the services of a lawyer
`and consultation with a lawyer is recommended. Because you are a party to a lawsuit, you have
`obligations and deadlines which must be followed whether you use an alternative dispute resolution
`procedure or not. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH A PETITION, YOU MUST FILE A RESPONSE
`ON TIME TO AVOID THE RISK OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU CHOOSE TO
`PURSUE AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.
`
`Mernative Dispute Resolution Procedures
`
`There are several procedures designed to help parties settle lawsuits. Most of these procedures
`involve the services of a neutral third party, often referred to as the "neutral," who is trained in dispute
`resolution and is not partial to any party. The services are provided by individuals and organizations who
`may charge a fee for this help. Some of the recognized alternative dispute resolutions procedures are:
`
`(1) Advisory Arbitration: A procedure in which a neutral person or persons (typically one person or a
`panel of three persons) hears both sides and decides the case. The arbitrator's decision is not binding and
`simply serves to guide the parties in trying to settle their lawsuit. An arbitration is typically less formal than
`a trial, is usually shorter, and may be conducted in a private setting at a time mutually agreeable to the
`parties. The parties, by agreement, may select the arbitrator(s) and determine the rules under which the
`arbitration will be conducted.
`
`(2) Mediation: A process in which a neutral third party facilitates communication between the parties to
`promote settlement. An effective mediator may offer solutions that have not been considered by the
`parties or their lawyers. A mediator may not impose his or her own judgment on the issues for that of the
`parties.
`
`CCA DIVT73
`
`OSCA (7-99) SM30 (SMCC)For Court Use Only: Document ID# 21-SMCC-6549 3 (Civil Procedure Fonn No. 1, Rules 54.01 — 54.05,
`54.13, and 54.20; 506.120— 506.140, and 506.150 RSMo
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 6 of 56 PageID #: 12
`
`(3) Early Neutral Evaluation ("ENE"): A process designed to bring the parties to the litigation and their
`counsel together in the early pretrial period to present case summaries before and receive a non-binding
`assessment from an experienced neutral evaluator. The objective is to promote early and meaningful
`communication concerning disputes, enabling parties to plan their cases effectively and assess realistically
`the relative strengths and weaknesses of their positions. While this confidential environment provides an
`opportunity to negotiate a resolution, immediate settlement is not the primary purpose of this process.
`
`4 Mini-Trial: A process in which each party and their counsel present their case before a selected
`representative for each party and a neutral third party, to define the issues and develop a basis for realistic
`settlement negotiations. The neutral third party may issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the
`case. The advisory opinion is not binding.
`
`(5) Summary Jury Trial: A summary jury trial is a non binding, informal settlement process in which
`jurors hear abbreviated case presentations. A judge or neutral presides over the hearing, but there are no
`witnesses and the rules of evidence are relaxed. After the "trial", the jurors retire to deliberate and then
`deliver an advisory verdict. The verdict then becomes the starting point for settlement negotiations among
`the parties.
`
`Selecting an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure and a Neutral
`
`if the parties agree to use an alternative dispute resolution procedure, they must decide what type of
`procedure to use and the identity of the neutral. As a public service, the St. Louis County Circuit Clerk
`maintains a list of persons who are available to serve as neutrals. The list contains the names of
`individuals who have met qualifications established by the Missouri Supreme Court and have asked to be
`on the list. The Circuit Clerk also has Neutral Qualifications Forms on file. These forms have been
`submitted by the neutrals on the list and provide information on their background and expertise. They also
`indicate the types of alternative dispute resolution services each neutral provides.
`
`A copy of the list may be obtained by request in person and in writing to: Circuit Clerk, Office of Dispute
`Resolution Services, 105 South Central Ave., 5th Floor, Clayton, Missouri 63105. The Neutral
`Qualifications Forms will also be made available for inspection upon request to the Circuit Clerk.
`
`The List and Neutral Qualification Forms are provided only as a convenience to the parties in selecting
`a neutral. The court cannot advise you on legal matters and can only provide you with the List and Forms.
`You should ask your lawyer for further information.
`
`CCA DM7 3
`
`OSCA (7-99) SM30 (SMCC) For Court Use Only: Document ID# 21-SMCC-6549 4 (Civil Procedure Fonn No. 1, Rules 54.01 — 54.05,
`54.13, and 54.20; 506.120 — 506.140, and 506.150 RSMo
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 7 of 56 PageID #: 13
`
`County Satellite Court Now Open in St. Ann
`Hours: Mon-Fri 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. FREE PARKING
`
`For the convenience of North County residents, a satellite branch of the St. Louis County Circuit
`Court is now open at the St. Louis County Government Center Northwest at the 715 Northwest Plaza
`Drive in St. Ann.
`Attending Court Hearings Remotely using E-Courts
`If you are scheduled to appear in court, you can access the courtroom remotely using the public
`computer stations (E-courts) in St. Ann and Clayton. These are available for use when courtroom
`access is restricted due to the pandemic.
`Please note: Hearings for juvenile and paternity cases are confidential, and can only be accessed
`from the Clayton E-court at this time.
`
`Be sure to bring your paperwork with you; you will need your case number, as well as the date,
`time and number of the Division where you are scheduled to appear.
`
`Filing Pleadings/New Petitions
`If you are representing yourself, you may file your paperwork at the St. Ann satellite court, in
`addition to the Clayton courthouse, using the secure drop box located inside the Court reception area.
`Filing Orders of Protection
`Starting March 1, you may file for an Order of Protection at the Adult Abuse office in the St. Ann
`satellite court, in addition to the Clayton courthouse. Clerks will be available on-site to help you fill
`out and file the necessary paperwork.
`
`For more information call: 314-615-8029
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 8 of 56 PageID #: 14
`
`21SL-CC03384
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
`OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI
`
`ARLIE TUCKER, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`Case No.
`Division No.
`
`SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., SAFE
`HOME SECURITY, INC., ALARM
`SERVICES LLC; MONITRONICS
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and THE
`BRINK'S COMPANY
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION PETITION
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ARLIE TUCKER ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of all
`
`other persons similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, upon personal knowledge of
`
`the facts pertaining to him and on information and belief based upon the investigation of counsel
`
`as to all other matters, and brings this class action complaint against SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC., ALARM SERVICES LLC; MONITRONICS
`
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and THE BRINK'S COMPANY (collectively, "Defendants") as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF CASE
`
`I.
`
`This case is about Defendants' practices of using unfair, deceptive, unethical,
`
`unlawful, and/or misleading business practices to trap individuals into several year contracts for
`
`home security services.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff entered into a contract with Alliance Security Systems, Inc. who sold the
`
`contract multiple times to third party entities, each charging Plaintiff and the Class for security
`
`monitoring services. Plaintiff and Class Members were left in a situation where it was virtually or
`
`1
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 9 of 56 PageID #: 15
`
`literally impossible to cancel their security services without incurring exorbitant fees and/or having
`
`their debt reported to credit reporting agencies.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Security Systems, Inc. and Safe Home Security, Inc. enroll individuals
`
`without their consent into a security monitoring service for an indefinite amount of time and
`
`without disclosing how one can get out of the program. Once enrolled (whether consensual or non-
`
`consensual), Plaintiff is unable to get out of the contract without incurring a penalty and/or having
`
`the purported debt reported to the credit reporting agencies. Defendants continue to send
`
`statements with account balances, previous balances, late fees, etc. and, later, threatening letters
`
`that Plaintiff will be reported to the credit bureaus every month and/or will make automatic
`
`withdraws from class members' bank account.
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that Safe Home Security, Inc. and Security Systems, Inc. was
`
`authorized by Court order to take over Plaintiff's security monitor account, Brink's Home Security,
`
`the security monitoring company Plaintiff had been involved with for years, knew this and failed
`
`to notify Plaintiff and the Class of the Court Order it was fully aware of and instead lead Plaintiff
`
`and the Class to believe that nothing had changed, which resulted in Plaintiff and the Class
`
`continuing to make payments and/or extending their contract with Brink's Home Security. Had
`
`Plaintiff known that it would be in two contracts at the same time, Plaintiff would not have
`
`continued to make payments and/or would not have extended the contract with Brink's Home
`
`Security.
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that Safe Home Security, Inc. and Security Systems, Inc. were not
`
`authorized to take over Plaintiff's security monitoring system by Court order or other third party
`
`agreement, Safe Home Security, Inc. and Security Systems, Inc. unfairly, fraudulently, and
`
`deceptively sent correspondence to Plaintiff to lead Plaintiff to believe that payments must be made
`
`2
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 10 of 56 PageID #: 16
`
`to Safe Home Security, Inc. and Security Systems, Inc. or Plaintiff will be reported to the credit
`
`agencies for failure to pay the invoices.
`
`6.
`
`These willful omissions, misrepresentations, and/or unlawful and/or unethical acts
`
`and/or failures to act are likely to cause confusion and do, in fact, cause confusion, often leaving
`
`customers unwittingly bound to multi-year contracts with these entities and/or with their credit
`
`scores tarnished.
`
`7.
`
`Even for customers that learn the true nature of Defendants' scams, it is often too
`
`little, too late. By ensuring their contracts are next to impossible to cancel and/or, with respect to
`
`Brinks, requiring up-front payment of not less than 80% of the remainder of the contract to cancel,
`
`Defendants have successfully trapped customers in multi-year contracts worth thousands of
`
`dollars.
`
`PARTIES & JURISDICTION
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff ARLIE TUCKER ("Plaintiff' or "Tucker") is a citizen of the State of
`
`Missouri.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant, SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. is a Connecticut Corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Connective at 1125 Middle Street, Middlestown, CT 06547. Security
`
`Systems, Inc. claims to provide administration, servicing, and billing of security system accounts.
`
`Security Systems, Inc. was established in 2001 and claims to be the nation's 16th largest security
`
`company. Defendant Security Systems, Inc. can be served through its registered agent at Incorp
`
`Services Inc., which is located at 6 Landmark Square, 4th Floor, Stamford, CT, 06901.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant, SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC., ("Defendant" and/or "Safe Home"),
`
`is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business located at 1125 Middle Street
`
`#201, Middletown, Connecticut 06457. Safe Home was incorporated in 1988. Safe Home's
`
`3
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 11 of 56 PageID #: 17
`
`registered agent for service of process in Connecticut is Incorp Services, Inc. 6 Landmark Square,
`
`4th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901. SAFE HOME SECUIRTY, INC. is a corporation that sells,
`
`installs, services, and monitors home alarm and security systems in Missouri and other states.
`
`1 1.
`
`Defendant MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("Defendant" or
`
`"Monitronics" or "Moni"), a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 1900
`
`Wittington Place in Farmers Branch, Texas 75234 provides residential customers and commercial
`
`client accounts with monitored home and business security systems, among other things.
`
`MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 2018 Annual 10K. Monitronics can be served
`
`through its registered agent at CT Corporation System located 120 South Central Ave, Clayton,
`
`Missouri, 63105.
`
`12. THE BRINK'S COMPANY ("Defendant" or "Brinks") is a Virginia corporation
`
`with a principal place of business located at 1801 Bayberry Court, Richmond, Virginia 23226-
`
`8100.
`
`13.
`
`In or about February 2018, MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`
`BRINKS, INC. (d/b/a and collectively referred to as "Brinks Home Security") entered into a long-
`
`term licensing agreement. According to the press release: "Under the terms of the agreement,
`
`MONI will have exclusive use of the BRINKS and BRINKS Home Security trademarks related to
`
`the residential smart home and home security categories in the U.S and Canada. MONI will pay
`
`Brink's customary licensing fees and minimum and growth-based royalties that will increase
`
`overtime as the BRINKS Home Security brand is reintroduced. MONI expects to pay first-year
`
`royalties of approximately $5 million. The agreement provides for an initial term of seven years
`
`and, subject to certain conditions, allows for subsequent renewal periods whereby MONI can
`
`extend the agreement beyond 20 years. The rollout of the BRINKS Home Security brand is
`
`4
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 12 of 56 PageID #: 18
`
`expected to be complete in the second quarter of 2018."
`
`14.
`
`Defendant ALARM SERVICES ALARM ("Defendant" or "Alarm Services") is a
`
`Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Rhode Island. Alarm Services
`
`claims to provide sales and marketing of residential alarm systems. Defendant Alarm Services can
`
`be served at 2404 Victory Hwy Coventry RI 02816.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct
`
`business throughout the state of Missouri.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`ALLIANCE
`
`16.
`
`Alliance Security, Inc. offers (a) alarm system installation and a monitoring
`
`contract (the Customers agree to sign a three (3) to five (5) year Alarm Monitoring Agreement
`
`("AMA") with Alliance) as well as (b) a sale and installation agreement for the purchase of certain
`
`alarm monitoring equipment.
`
`17.
`
`With respect to its alarm monitoring accounts, following an alarm installation
`
`Alliance may, and typically does, sell the alarm monitoring account to a third-party alarm services
`
`company, including Defendants or Defendant's agents, in exchange for upfront payment of the
`
`certain percentage of the future monthly monitoring fees.
`
`ALLIANCE AND MONITRONICS — THE RELATIONSHIP
`
`18.
`
`Alliance and Monitronics International, Inc. ("Monitronics") were parties to an
`
`Alarm Monitoring Purchase Agreement (the "AMPA"), which, inter alia, provided a mechanism
`
`by which Monitronics could purchase, under various conditions and within Monitronics' discretion
`
`as defined in the AMPA and the addendums thereto, any alarm monitoring agreement that Alliance
`
`entered into with a security system customer and desires to sell.
`
`5
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 13 of 56 PageID #: 19
`
`19.
`
`The AMPA included a right of first refusal, whereby Monitronics had a right of
`
`first refusal with respect to the purchase of Alliance's alarm monitoring agreements.
`
`20.
`
`In addition to the AMPA, the Debtor and a division of Monitronics executed that
`
`certain Contract Monitoring Agreement (the "CMA") dated April 22, 2008 and as amended from
`
`time. The CMA details the agreement between the parties engaging Monitronics to monitor alarm
`
`systems installed by the Debtor. The Debtor does not have the ability to monitor alarm systems
`
`and relies on Monitronics and others for this service.
`
`21.
`
`Said differently, prior to selling an alarm monitoring agreement to Monitronics
`
`pursuant to the AMPA, Monitronics Security LP handled the alarm monitoring for Alliance's
`
`customers pursuant to a Master Contract Monitoring Agreement dated April 22, 2008, and as
`
`thereafter amended on July 16, 2010 and May 15, 2012 (the "CMA").
`
`22.
`
`From 2007 through 2017, Alliance and Monitronics International, Inc.
`
`("Monitronics") were parties to an Alarm Monitoring Purchase Agreement (the "AMPA"), in
`
`which, inter alia, Monitronics could purchase Alliance's AMAs, under various conditions and
`
`within Monitronics' discretion as defined in the AMPA and the addendums thereto.
`
`23.
`
`Customers pay the initial month of monitoring fees to Alliance (Alliance does not
`
`provide monitoring directly, but pays Monitronics or other providers for monitoring).
`
`24.
`
`Customers are evaluated for creditworthiness by Alliance along with other factors,
`
`including ACH use and the term of the AMA, resulting in a total AMA value.
`
`25. AMAs are bundled and transmitted to Monitronics typically three (3) times each
`
`week, at which time Monitronics conducts additional underwriting and determines whether to
`
`purchase each AMA.
`
`26. AMAs not purchased are returned to Alliance, which pursuant to the AMPA, are to
`
`6
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 14 of 56 PageID #: 20
`
`remain the property of the Alliance unless and until Monitronics agrees to release its lien as to
`
`certain accounts. The AMAs not purchased are still a part of Monitronics' collateral.
`
`27.
`
`If Monitronics agreed to purchase an AMA, Monitronics would pay the agreed
`
`upon purchase price formula less a "holdback" percentage. The holdback amount is intended to
`
`protect Monitronics in the event the customer defaults on the AMA or is otherwise returned to the
`
`Alliance pursuant to the AMPA within the first year.
`
`28.
`
`Payments were made by Monitronics to the Alliance typically three (3) times each
`
`week for the AMAs purchased.
`
`29.
`
`Monitronics sends the customer a notice of assignment and thereafter collects the
`
`monthly monitoring fee. In the event the customer defaults or is otherwise returned to the Alliance
`
`in the first year, Monitronics debits the holdback account balance accordingly.
`
`30.
`
`The AMPA provided that the Debtor may not sell an AMA to a third party without
`
`Monitronics' consent.
`
`MONITRONICS AND THE BRINKS COMPANY - THE RELATIONSHIP
`
`31. On February 26, 2018, Monitronics entered into an exclusive, long-term, trademark
`
`licensing agreement with The Brink's Company ("Brink's"), which resulted in a complete
`
`rebranding of Monitronics and its subsidiary as Brink's Home Security (the "Brink's License
`
`Agreement").
`
`32.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Brink's License Agreement, Monitronics has exclusive
`
`use of the Brinks and Brinks Home Security trademarks related to the residential smart home and
`
`home security categories in the U.S. and Canada. The Brink's License Agreement provides for an
`
`initial term of seven years and, subject to certain conditions, allows for subsequent renewal periods
`
`whereby Monitronics can extend the agreement beyond 20 years.
`
`7
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 15 of 56 PageID #: 21
`
`33.
`
`The rollout of the Brink's Home Security brand in the second quarter of 2018
`
`included the integration of Monitronics' and Brinks' business models under a single brand — Brinks
`
`Home Security.
`
`34.
`
`In May 2018, both the Dealer Channel and Direct to Consumer Channels began to
`
`go to market under the Brinks Home Security brand.
`
`35.
`
`In June 2018, the Brink's Home Security brand was marketed directly to
`
`consumers.
`
`36.
`
`Monitronics and Brinks (collectively referred to as "Brinks Home Security")
`
`generates nearly all of their revenue from fees charged to customers (or "subscribers") under alarm
`
`monitoring agreements ("AMAs"), which include access to interactive and automation features at
`
`a higher fee. Each new AMA is generally generated at a cost based on a multiple of the account's
`
`RMR. The dealer contracts generally provide that if an acquired AMA is terminated within the
`
`first 12 months, the dealer must replace the AMA or refund the AMA purchase price. To secure
`
`the dealer's obligation, Brinks Home Security typically retains a percentage of the AMA purchase
`
`price.
`
`37.
`
`Approximately 94% of our subscribers are residential homeowners.
`
`38.
`
`Brinks Home Security represents in its 10K that:
`
`"AMAs typically contain provisions automatically renewing the term of the
`contract at the end of the initial term, unless a cancellation notice is delivered in
`accordance with the terms of the contract. If the customer cancels prior to the
`end of the contract term, other than in accordance with the contract, we may
`charge the customer an early cancellation fee as specified in the contract,
`which typically allows us to charge 80% of the amounts that would have been
`paid over the remaining term of the contract. Several states have adopted, or
`are considering the adoption of, consumer protection policies or legal precedents
`which purport to void or substantially limit the automatic renewal provisions of
`contracts such as the AMAs, or otherwise restrict the charges that can be imposed
`upon contract cancellation. Such initiatives could negatively impact our business.
`Adverse judicial determinations regarding these matters could increase legal
`
`8
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PIV1
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 16 of 56 PageID #: 22
`
`exposure to customers against whom such charges have been imposed, and the risk
`that certain customers may seek to recover such charges through litigation. In
`addition, the costs of defending such litigation and enforcement actions could have
`an adverse effect on our business and operations."
`
`(Emphasis added.) (hereinafter referred to "Penalty Clause")
`
`ALARM SERVICES
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, pursuant to Alarm Services LLC's agreement with
`
`Alliance Security Systems, Inc., Alarm Services began sending Invoices to Plaintiff beginning on
`
`or about July 2017. Plaintiff continued to be billed through November 2018 in the amount of or
`
`about $59.99. Of note, Plaintiff was already receiving home security services from Brinks and/or
`
`Monitronics and, therefore, Alarm Services could not have been providing the service it was
`
`charging Plaintiff for.
`
`40.
`
`Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, upon information and belief, these bills were paid
`
`automatically via automatic withdraw that had previously been provided to Alliance Security
`
`Systems, Inc.
`
`SAFE HOME SECURITY AND SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`41.
`
`SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC. and SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. are
`
`corporations that jointly sell, install, service, and monitor home alarm and security systems in
`
`Missouri and other states.
`
`42.
`
`The Connecticut Office of Attorney General and the Connecticut Department of
`
`Consumer Protection has received numerous complaints from consumers claiming that Safe Home
`
`Security engages in various abusive and predatory business practices, including making
`
`misrepresentations that unfairly lock them into long-term contracts and made it difficult for them
`
`to cancel. In fact, ADT is currently litigating claims against Safe Home Security for tortious
`
`interference with a third party and for poaching its customers. See, ADT LLC v. Safe Home
`
`9
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Electronically Filed - St Louis County - July 28, 2021 - 04:58 PM
`
`Case: 4:21-cv-01094 Doc. #: 1-3 Filed: 09/02/21 Page: 17 of 56 PageID #: 23
`
`Security, Inc., 1: 20-cv-23918.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, complaints show that Safe Home Security sales
`
`agents many times intentionally target customers that are over the age of 65, are infirm, or have
`
`diminished mental capacities. Plaintiff in the instant action is more than 70 years old.
`
`ALLIANCE AND SAFE HOME SECURITY /
`THE BREAKDOWN OF ALLIANCE AND MONITRONIC'S RELATIONSHIP
`
`44.
`
`At some point, without the consent of Monitronics, Alliance sold approximately
`
`$1,500,000.00 of contracts to third party Safe Home Security, Inc.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff's name (or the name on the account) did not
`
`appear on the Bill of Sale identifying the individuals' and/or businesses' accounts being sold to
`
`Safe Home Security, Inc.
`
`46.
`
`Additionally, from 2015 through 2017, Alliance would periodically sell AMAs that
`
`Monitronics chose not to purchase to Buyer in bulk. Notably, Alliance sold sub