T-Mobile, Crown Castle Seek Dismissal of Landlord’s Counterclaim
Defendant Academy Medical’s “meandering” Jan. 12 counterclaim alleging T-Mobile and Crown Castle were guilty of cell tower deceit (see 2301130001) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, said the plaintiffs’ motion Friday…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
(docket 1:22-cv-00910) in U.S. District Court for New Mexico. T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy prevented the defendant “from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease,” alleged the property owner’s counterclaim. But the “plain language” of the amended cell tower lease “expressly permits subleasing and imposes no limitations on subleasing,” except a requirement that any sublessee agree to abide by the terms of the contract, countered the plaintiffs. The provision “does not in any way restrict or narrow a sublessee’s rights relative to those of the original lessee,” nor does the lease prohibit a further sublease by any sublessee, they said. The “net effect” is that a sublessee operating in accordance with the terms of the lease “may further sublease and need not provide any notice” to Academy, as the property owner contends was required, they said.