AT&T’s Objections to Residents Intervening in Tower Dispute Are ‘Mistaken,’ Say Residents
“Disputed factors favor intervention as of right” of 255 Kootenai County, Idaho, residents in AT&T’s cell tower fight with the municipality, said the residents’ reply Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho in support of their motion to…
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.
intervene. AT&T opposes the motion, and the county takes no position (see 2307170016). The intervenors “have protectable interests” that are distinct from those of the county and may not be “adequately advanced” by the municipality, said the residents. AT&T contends the residents “lack any protectable interest warranting intervention,” but that conclusion “is mistaken,” they said. The pre-litigation history of AT&T’s dispute with the county bolsters the intervenors’ argument that the municipality may not adequately represent or protect the residents’ interests, they said. The 9th Circuit has said the burden on proposed intervenors in showing inadequate representation of their interests by existing parties is “minimal,” and is satisfied if they can demonstrate that representation may be inadequate, they said. The best evidence supporting the claim the county won’t or can’t adequately represent and protect the residents’ interests is when the county voted against those interests, and in AT&T’s favor, “when first given the chance,” they said. Only after the residents filed “multiple requests for reconsideration” did the county “align itself with and protect the same interests” as the residents, they said.