Idaho County Moves for Summary Judgment vs. AT&T in Year-Old Tower Fight
Kootenai County, Idaho, seeks summary judgment against AT&T on the grounds that “there are no genuine issues of material fact” that exist to preclude it, and because the county “is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law,” said…
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.
its motion Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. AT&T, in a year-old complaint, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the county’s denial of its June 2022 application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility in the state's northwest corner, near the Washington border (see 2303300046). An “actual and justiciable controversy” exists in this case because the carrier seeks a reversal of the county’s denial of its application for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility, while the county “is vigorously defending that decision,” said the Kootenai’s memorandum in support of its motion. The defendant’s decision to deny AT&T’s application “was based on substantial evidence in the record,” as was required under the Telecommunications Act, it said. The county received 136 public comments regarding the application, it said. Most of the people who commented lived near the facility site, “and most of the comments were opposed to the proposal,” it said. Some comments “included extensive presentations and other materials in support of their position,” it said. Numerous people also testified, mostly in opposition, to the proposal at the four public hearings, it said. Kootenai’s denial doesn’t “effectively prohibit” AT&T from providing telecommunications services locally, said the memorandum. Both the carrier and the county have “specifically requested expedited review” of the county’s denial decision, it said. Consideration of evidence submitted outside the record made during the proceedings before the county “would be inconsistent with the expedited review that both parties have requested,” it said.