Google Fiber and John Does 1-10 drilled through Rocky Mountain Power’s utility lines at a site in Salt Lake City County and damaged them, Rocky Mountain said in an Oct. 3 complaint filed Monday (docket 230907610) in Utah District Court in Salt Lake City. Google Fiber, through its agents, was using power-driven equipment in November to perform excavating and drilling at a site in South Jordan within 24 inches of Rocky Mountain Power’s “properly marked” streetlight utility lines, the complaint alleged. Defendants were negligent for failing to (1) exercise due care in their work, (2) properly notify the proper parties to correctly locate and mark the utility lines after they were hit, (3) observe markings for the underground utility lines in the area, 4) use power-driven excavating equipment within 24 inches of markings for the lines and for (5) striking and damaging the lines, among other claims. Defendants have refused to pay for the damage, which cost plaintiff $2,503.20 in material, labor and transportation. Plaintiff seeks damages plus prejudgment interest of 6.7%.
Subcontractor Kee Industries denies it breached its contractual relationship with Crown Castle contractor American Power Tower (APT) by failing to provide proper services and personnel for Dish Network and Samsung wireless infrastructure projects in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (see 2306260001), said Kee’s answer Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01239) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. Due to Kee’s “intentional and tortious interference” with APT’s contractual relationships with Crown Castle, APT suffered economic damages and incurred unnecessary legal expenses, alleged APT’s June 23 complaint. APT has suffered, and will continue to incur in the future, economic damages “as a direct and proximate result” of Kee’s tort, it said. But Kee alleges APT’s own acts or omissions “amount to wrongful negligent or intentional acts or omissions,” said its answer. Kee also alleges any damages sustained by APT were caused by “superseding” or “intervening” acts or omissions of persons or entititles other than Kee over whose conduct Kee “has no control,” it said.
Each cause of action in plaintiff Debra Brown’s complaint, in which she seeks to nullify the wireless communications easement on her residential property in Goshen, Indiana, and to exclude Frontier and six other defendants from the parcel of real estate that’s “burdened” by the easement (see 2309150006), is barred because Frontier “has a prescriptive easement in the property in dispute,” said Frontier’s answer Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00842) in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in South Bend. Brown’s complaint asserts she’s entitled to possession of the real estate, “free and clear of any actual possession or use” by any of the defendants, except for a 25-foot-wide parcel of land that Frontier may have acquired under deeds of easement granted by Brown’s mother, Charlotte Lantz. The facilities include above-ground and underground fiber cables, plus one or more phone lines, said Brown’s complaint. Frontier contends it’s not liable for damages to Brown and shouldn’t be enjoined to remove certain underground fiber cables from the property in dispute, said Frontier’s cross-claim against Verizon, also filed Monday. Frontier installed underground fiber cables on the property in dispute “in reliance of Verizon’s representation that it possessed an easement in the property in dispute,” said the cross-claim. To the extent the court finds Verizon doesn’t own an easement in the property in dispute, Frontier “is entitled to complete indemnity from Verizon for any damages, liabilities, obligations, or costs incurred by Frontier pursuant to Frontier’s reliance on Verizon’s alleged misrepresentations,” said the cross-claim. Verizon didn’t comment Tuesday, and hasn’t answered Brown’s complaint.
T-Mobile can’t prevail in its claims that Chestnut Ridge, New York, violated Section 704 of the Communications Act when it denied T-Mobile’s applications to build a 105-foot monopole cell tower (see 2307110008) because it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, said the village’s answer Monday (docket 7:23-cv-05852) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. T-Mobile also can’t prevail because the village’s denials “were supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record,” as federal law requires, it said. T-Mobile also can’t prevail because its proposed cell tower isn’t “the least intrusive means to remedy any purported gap in coverage or insufficient capacity,” it said.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis granted AT&T’s second motion for summary judgment in its bid to overcome the denials of Monroe County, Illinois, for construction of a 155-foot monopole tower on a leased, fenced-in portion of land that also contains an independently run self-storage facility, said Rosenstengel’s signed order Friday (docket 3:20-cv-01327). AT&T’s summary judgment motion alleged the Monroe County board of commissioners failed to comply with the timing requirements under the Illinois Counties Code and the Monroe County Code of Ordinances, and the judge agreed, said her order. “The record is clear” that the county failed to comply with the 75-day mandate in both the Illinois Counties Code and its own zoning ordinance, it said. As for what that means for the resolution of the dispute, AT&T reasoned that if a county acts on an application outside the 75-day window, “it acts outside its conferred power,” said the order. AT&T’s argument is that any decision rendered outside of that power is void, and the court “is persuaded by this logic and applies the same,” it said. The county acted outside of its authority after the 75-day window lapsed, it said. Neither the county nor AT&T “has the ability to waive an express provision limiting the power conferred by statute and the legislature,” it said. Her order set an Oct. 13 deadline for the filing of a joint status report "indicating any other issues necessary" for the court to resolve.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton set a Nov. 6 briefing deadline on the motion of seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents to intervene in Verizon’s complaint to force Monmouth County’s approval of its application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights-of-way, said the judge’s text-only order Friday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). The would-be intervenors, banding together as a grass-roots organization they call Belmar Against 5G Towers, are individuals who live and own property in the immediate vicinity of the SWFs, and will be “directly and adversely affected” if the SWFs are built and go into operation, said their motion to intervene Wednesday (see 2309280027).
Mastec North America violated Florida law in October 2019 when it excavated with mechanical equipment along a one-block stretch of Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, causing $47,341 in damages to Crown Castle’s underground telecom cable, alleged Crown Castle’s Sept. 25 complaint (docket 2023-130660-CC-23) in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County. The complaint alleges Mastec negligently failed to excavate “in a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” and it failed to take “adequate measures” to safeguard Crown Castle’s cable against damage.
Seven residents of Belmar, New Jersey, banding together as a grass-roots organization they call Belmar Against 5G Towers, seek to intervene in Verizon’s complaint to force Monmouth County’s approval of its application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights of way (see 2309080048), said their memorandum Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in support of their motion to intervene. They seek oral argument if opposition is filed to their motion. Verizon seeks an order requiring the county to approve the SWFs application and to execute a landowner consent form that Verizon claims is a necessary prerequisite for a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection coastal area facility review permit. Verizon alleges the county’s denial of its SWFs application was legally erroneous or invalid, and its failure to execute the consent form “is also legally erroneous or invalid,” said the residents’ memorandum. The residents “disagree on both counts,” and move for party status as defendant-intervenors, it said. The intervenors are individuals “who live and own property in the immediate vicinity” of the SWFs, and will be “directly and adversely affected” if the SWFs are built and go into operation, said their memorandum. The court “should allow them to intervene in the instant matter as a matter of right,” it said. The case will “impair or impede” their ability “to protect their interests,” and they aren’t “adequately represented” by the county, it said. Even if the residents aren’t permitted to intervene “as a matter of right,” they have “a significant interest in the outcome of the instant litigation,” said the memorandum. “They also have unique and additional claims that are not likely to be raised” by the county, it said.
Plaintiff Olcan III Properties and defendant Global Tower seek to stay their litigation for 45 days and to suspend all deadlines in the case “while the parties pursue a potential settlement,” said their joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore. The parties agree to file a joint status report by Nov. 13 either informing the court they reached a resolution or setting forth an agreed schedule consistent with the court’s original scheduling order, said the motion. Their joint motion “is not made for the purpose of improper delay or for any other inappropriate purpose, but is made in good faith in an attempt to resolve this matter,” it said. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett granted the motion, said his signed order late Wednesday. Olcan’s second amended complaint alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits” (see 2211140050). Global Tower counters by alleging Olcan neglected its property for years, failing to do routine upkeep and care required to maintain the building (see 2302010046).
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Sept. 11 petition of Pasadena, Texas, for a rehearing or rehearing en banc of the court’s Aug. 4 decision that the city’s design manual unduly imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node network (see 2309120008), said the 5th Circuit’s order Monday (docket 22-20454). Because no member of the panel or judge in regular active service asked that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Pasaden’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied, said the order.