Global Signal, STC Two Sue Ohio Landowner Over Locked Access to Cellsite
A landowner who installed a padlock at the entrance of a cell tower site in Franklin County, Ohio, is in breach of a lease to STC Two, alleged a Friday complaint (docket (2:23-cv-00764) filed by STC Two and Global Signal in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus.
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.
Defendant Thomas Branham, of Ashville, Ohio, owns property in Columbus, of which a 2,500-square-foot section was leased to SprintCom in 1998. In 2005, SprintCom assigned all of its rights, title and interest in the original lease, leased premises and cellsite to STC, which was authorized without notice or consent of the landlord under Section 5 of the lease, said the complaint. STC entered a master lease and sublease agreement through which it appointed Global Signal as its attorney-in-fact for the cellsite. The lease runs through 2048, unless terminated earlier by the plaintiffs.
Branham recently installed a padlock on the gate through which Global Signal employees have accessed the site for over 20 years, and has refused to remove it, prohibiting plaintiffs and their “invitees” from freely accessing the premises and the cellsite, alleged Global Signal. By doing so, he jeopardized the safety and security of the cellsite, interfered with cell tower operations, “adversely impacted” the plaintiffs’ relationship with customers and placed at risk critical wireless and internet services used by local communities, the complaint alleged.
After being notified by Branham of his intention to install a lock on the gate, which wasn't previously locked, a representative of Global Signal parent company Crown Castle wrote to Branham, telling him the company’s rights must not be infringed and proposing a solution that would allow him to lock the gate without violating Global Signal’s access rights, the complaint said.
Branham “willfully breached” the lease by interfering with Global Signal’s access and use of the leased premises and cellsite and has prohibited it from using the express access easement granted in the lease. He didn't give the company a key and posted a sign directing Global Signal employees to contact him to obtain access. The plaintiffs and their customers, on several occasions since the lock was installed, were refused access and threatened with physical violence, the complaint alleged.
The defendant has continued to obstruct Global Signal’s access to the cellsite “in blatant violation” of the lease, which entitles its employees to access “24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” the complaint said. Unfettered access is critical to safe and successful operation of the cellsite, it said. The plaintiffs continued to pay rent under the lease, the complaint said.
The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek damages of more than $75,000, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, plus the removal of the lock and a declaration that Branham is prohibited from interfering with plaintiffs’ and their customers’ maintenance and operation of the cellsite.