KEN KIRSCHENBAUM, ESQ
ALARM - SECURITY INDUSTRY LEGAL EMAIL NEWSLETTER / THE ALARM EXCHANGE
You can read all of our articles on our website. Having trouble getting our emails? Change your spam controls and whitelist ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
******************************
lawsuit against Vivint dismissed
August 1, 2026
*********************
lawsuit against Vivint dismissed
***********************
A pro se plaintiff sued Vivint alleging that since installing an intrusion alarm system in his home "that, every night since its installation, Defendant has disarmed the system to allow members of the police department to illegally enter his home, conduct unlawful searches and seizures, and sexually assault him in his sleep, after which Defendant must rearm the system so that there is no trace of the intrusion by “deleting and erasing the encryption from the data security” and transferring information into a “cipher text and placed into a code.”
Case was filed in Federal Court in Indiana and the Judge noted that this was the third such case, the previous two having been filed against others. The Judge dealt with this nonsense case easily, noting that "A district court need not entertain factually frivolous allegations." “Irrational, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or incredible allegations are factually frivolous.” The Judge finally holds: "As presented, this case is patently frivolous, thus deserving of no further judicial time."
But, the dismissal is "without prejudice" so this plaintiff is not precluded from trying again, against Vivent, or maybe you!! Make sure your E&O is in place.
Here's the case:
**********************
2024 WL 7117724
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION.
GARY COPENY, Plaintiff, v. VIVINT CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, Defendant.
No. 1:24-cv-01264-SEB-MKK
Filed 11/15/2024
ORDER
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
*1 Now before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 10] filed by Defendant Vivint, Inc., incorrectly named in the caption as Vivint Corporate Headquarters. Plaintiff Gary Copeny, proceeding pro se, brings this action against Defendant, a home security company, alleging that Defendant installed a security system in his home and that, every night since its installation, Defendant has disarmed the system to allow members of the police department to illegally enter his home, conduct unlawful searches and seizures, and sexually assault him in his sleep, after which Defendant must rearm the system so that there is no trace of the intrusion by “deleting and erasing the encryption from the data security” and transferring information into a “cipher text and placed into a code.” Compl. at 6, § III. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts various causes of action, including “Civil Rights Act of 1964, 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution, Statue [sic] of Liberty, and Safety and Protection for the Public.” Id. at 2, Sec. I(A). Plaintiff also makes various references to state law causes of action in his complaint, including claims for product liability, fraud, and breach of warranty. Id. at 6, § III.
This is the most recent of three cases Plaintiff has filed in this court, all of which lawsuits allege substantially similar claims of abuse against different entities. Defendant, in its motion to dismiss, has raised numerous meritorious arguments for dismissing Plaintiff's claims on the merits. However, we sidestep here a discussion of the merits of those arguments because a complaint that is wholly insubstantial does not invoke the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998); In re African-American Slave Descendants Litig., 471 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2006). When it is clear that a lawsuit is irrational or delusional, the district court is required to dismiss it, regardless of whether the plaintiff has paid the full filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Even giving the complaint liberal construction, as we are required to do especially for pro se plaintiffs, we are unable to discern any plausible federal claim against Defendant. A district court need not entertain factually frivolous allegations. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); Atkins v. Sharpe, 854 Fed. App'x 73 (7th Cir. 2021) (“Irrational, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, or incredible allegations are factually frivolous.”) (citing Felton v. City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 2016)). As presented, this case is patently frivolous, thus deserving of no further judicial time. See Holland v. City of Gary, 503 Fed. Appx. 476 (7th Cir. 2013); Gladney v. Pendleton Correctional Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 774 (7th Cir. 2002); Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000).
For these reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the allegations in the complaint are both fanciful and farcical to an extent that fails to engage the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, dismissal of this action is required, though we do so without prejudice. All currently pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue as Plaintiff's allegations lack any arguable basis in fact and amendment would be futile.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Distribution:
End of Document © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
*********************
STANDARD FORMS Alarm / Security / Fire and related Agreements. click here: www.alarmcontracts.com
***************************
CONCIERGE LAWYER SERVICE PROGRAM FOR THE ALARM INDUSTRY - You can check out the program and sign up here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/concierge or contact our Program Coordinator Stacy Spector, Esq at 516 747 6700 x 304.
***********************
ALARM ARTICLES: You can always read our Articles on our website at ww.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles updated daily ********************
THE ALARM EXCHANGE - the alarm industries leading classified and business exchange - updated daily
*************************
Wondering how much your alarm company is worth?
Click here: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/what-is-my-alarm-company-worth
******************************
Getting on our Email List / Email Articles archived:
Many of you are forwarding these emails to friends or asking that others be added to the list. Sign up for our daily newsletter here: Sign Up. You can read articles and order alarm contracts on our web site www.alarmcontracts.com
**************************
Ken Kirschenbaum,Esq
Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum PC
Attorneys at Law
200 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
516 747 6700 x 301
ken@kirschenbaumesq.com
www.KirschenbaumEsq.com
|
