Ohio Property Owner Withdraws Counterclaim vs. STC Two, Global Signal

in a counterclaim that the path of STC Two’s access to a cell tower from the entrance gate requires a trespass on Branham’s property. STC Two has a pending motion to dismiss the counterclaim; Branham’s response is due Friday. “After informal discovery and sharing of information, it has become evident to defendant that the position set forth in his Counterclaim is incorrect and not supported by the facts of permitted access,” said attorney Charley Hess, who filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Branham’s counsel of record last month (see Ref:2308280028]) after Branham terminated the representation during a meeting at the cell tower site with plaintiffs’ attorneys in Columbus. U.S. District Judge James Graham denied the motion to withdraw after Branham said in a Sept. 1 teleconference he would like Hess’ continued representation. Branham owns the property where a cellsite has been operating for decades under a 1998 Sprint PCS site agreement that was amended in 2013. Under the lease, STC Two and Global Signal are authorized to maintain, operate and sublease the cell tower and related equipment at the site, said their May memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss Branham’s counterclaims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint after Branham “repeatedly and brazenly obstructed and/or prevented altogether” STC Two’s access to the cellsite in “blatant violation” of the lease. In response to the lawsuit, Branham filed his answer and counterclaims, admitting he obstructed STC Two's access to the cellsite. Branham “curiously asserted claims” against STC Two for trespass, preliminary and injunctive relief and breach of contract, and he installed a padlock on the gate of the metal fenced enclosure leading to the cellsite, said plaintiffs’ motion. Withdrawing the counterclaim will simplify the issues, “furthering the opportunity of the parties to reach resolution,” said Branham’s Tuesday motion.