N.J. Residents Oppose Staying Motion to Dismiss Until Motion to Intervene Is Decided
The seven residents of Belmar, New Jersey, who seek to intervene in Verizon’s wireless dispute with Monmouth County oppose Verizon’s request that the court stay briefing on their motion to dismiss Verizon’s complaint against the county until 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 is decided, their attorney, Anthony D’Artiglio of Ansell Grimm, wrote U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton in a letter Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). Verizon contends the residents are nonparties to its dispute with the county, and so they lack standing to bring their motion to dismiss (see 2310310007). But Verizon cites “no support” for its contention the motion to intervene must be decided before the motion to dismiss may be briefed, D'Artiglio told the judge. The two motions are “necessarily intertwined” because the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss inform whether the intervenors “should be permitted to intervene,” he said. Those arguments should be compared against the county defendant’s answer to determine whether the intervenors’ interests “are adequately represented” by the county, he said. “Simple judicial economy and fairness dictates” that both motions “be heard in tandem, after briefing,” he said. The intervenors submit that the motions “may be briefed in the ordinary course” and decided at the court’s discretion, said the attorney. But if the court is inclined to grant Verizon’s request to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss until after the motion to intervene is decided, the intervenors join in Verizon’s request for a scheduling conference “to further discuss this issue,” he said. The residents previously opposed Verizon’s request for the scheduling conference. Verizon sued the county to reverse its allegedly unlawful denial of an application to install nine small wireless facilities in the public rights of way to remedy a significant coverage gap in wireless service that grows worse in the oceanfront community's summer beach traffic.