Defendant Kootenai County, Idaho, “has no objection” to the motion of about 255 residents to intervene in the county’s cell tower fight with AT&T, said the county’s response Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. The residents argued they can’t rely on the county to protect their interests in AT&T’s dispute with the municipality over the cell tower (see 2306300047). AT&T’s March 29 complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the county’s denial of its application for a conditional use permit to build the 150-foot lattice tower in the northwest corner of the state near the Washington border (see 2303300046).
Verizon and Rankin County, Mississippi, reached a compromise over the municipality’s denial of Verizon’s application to build and operate a 200-foot-tall monopole cell tower to fill a significant gap in wireless coverage and capacity in the area, said their joint motion for an order and final judgment Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00381) in U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi in Jackson. The judgment, if approved by the court, “will fully dispose of all claims in this case,” said the motion. The county agreed to “expeditiously issue” Verizon a conditional use permit, plus any approvals necessary, authorizing construction of the tower, and is barring from imposing any penalties against Verizon that would impede progress on the tower, it said. “The parties have considered their positions in this litigation and, to avoid any further expense and risk associated with this case, stipulate to the entry of Judgment and resolution of this case,” it said. Each side will bear its own attorneys’ fees and court costs, it said.
There’s “no dispute” about what legal standard the court should apply to AT&T’s claim that authorities in Lane County, Oregon, unlawfully prohibited the provision of wireless services when they denied AT&T’s application to build a new cell tower, said AT&T’s reply memorandum Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-01635) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Eugene in support of its motion for summary judgment against the municipality. Lane County also moved for summary judgment against AT&T (see 2307070016). AT&T’s motion asks the court to rule that AT&T has a significant service coverage gap, and that the proposed cell tower “is the least intrusive means for closing that gap,” it said. AT&T proved the existence of a gap, it said. It also submitted evidence of its “exhaustive search for an alternative location and shown how there are no other locations available or feasible that will close that gap,” it said. AT&T proved this “via evidence provided at the administrative level and evidence submitted in support of its motion,” it said. The county “submitted zero evidence in response,” said AT&T. It instead “offered factual misrepresentations regarding the administrative record and distracting and unconvincing legal arguments,” it said.
Lane County, Oregon, in its June 1 motion for summary judgment (see 2306020025), established that it’s “entitled to judgment as a matter of law” on AT&T’s claims the county violated Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act when it denied AT&T’s application to build a new wireless tower, said the county’s reply Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-01635) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Eugene in support of its motion. AT&T’s application didn’t describe any personal wireless services it would be effectively prohibited from providing without a new tower, it said. Nor did AT&T provide “the basic information necessary” for the county to determine whether the proposed tower “was the least intrusive means to fill any alleged gap in coverage for personal wireless services,” it said. That’s the “sole and controlling test” for determining a Section 332 violation, it said. AT&T then failed to follow Oregon’s land use process, which requires an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals as the final step in a land use application, it said. AT&T now asks the court to consider new evidence never provided to the county in the application process, it said. That would effectively bypass the local zoning process that Congress “expressly preserved” when it enacted Section 332, it said. The “material facts” in the case aren’t in dispute, it said. Under binding 9th Circuit precedent, the county “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law denying AT&T’s claims,” it said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing for New Mexico in Albuquerque scheduled a remote settlement conference for July 24 at 9 a.m. MDT in the cell tower lease dispute between plaintiffs T-Mobile and Crown Castle and defendant landlord Academy Medical Office, said her signed order Friday (docket 1:22-cv-00910). T-Mobile, the lessee, and Crown Castle, its subtenant, allege Academy is actively blocking Crown Castle from upgrading the tower on its property for Dish Network’s 5G network buildout (see 2211300001).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied Thursday’s letter motion (docket 2:22-cv-07807) from the village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York, to cancel a July 19 settlement conference with plaintiff AT&T on grounds that it would be futile for resolving the case. Tiscione’s text-only order gave no reasons for his denial, but said the in-person conference will now be held virtually. AT&T’s Dec. 22 complaint alleges the village’s denial of its cell tower application violated the Telecommunications Act by prohibiting the carrier from providing wireless telecommunications services (see 2212230054). AT&T further contends the village failed to act on its application before the statute's shot clock expired, and that the denial wasn’t based on substantial evidence in a written record, as the TCA requires. Oyster Bay Cove thinks settlement of the dispute “is not possible at this time,” and that the village will require a determination by the court of the “substantive merits” of AT&T’s claims, counsel for the village told the judge. Rather than waste the court's “valuable time,” the village thinks it would be “pointless to proceed with the scheduled conference," and asks that it be cancelled, and the parties directed to complete discovery,” said counsel. The court disagreed.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Southern New York in Manhattan grudgingly granted the joint letter motion of Verizon and the town of Saugerties, New York, to set an Aug. 18 deadline for filing motions of summary judgment, said his text order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-00107). The parties’ June 23 motion said they needed the seven-week deadline extension to accommodate their “continued good faith efforts to resolve this matter" via settlement (see 2306260027). Though Stewart granted the extension, his order suggested his patience was running thin. “Representations have been made to the Court that the case is on the cusp of settlement,” but “similar representations” have been made at least five times in the past, it said. His order granted “one final extension,” and made clear that “no further extensions will be granted.” Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers allege Saugerties unlawfully refused to act on a cell tower application before the shot clock’s expiration, in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2301190046).
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hold in abeyance until Sept. 13 the consolidated appeals between Verizon and the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, to enable the combined cases (dockets 22-16153 and 22-16489) to enter a second round of mediation, said an order Friday. Verizon alleges the district court wrongly dismissed its complaint against the city on grounds that the municipality’s denial of its cell tower application was improper under the Telecommunications Act (see 2306020010). The city’s appeal seeks to reverse the U.S. District Court for Northern California’s denial of its motion to recover nearly $78,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Subcontractor Kee Industries “materially 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, alleged APT in a complaint Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01239) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. APT agreed under an "oral understanding" to pay Kee for “approved services and personnel costs,” but APT never agreed to pay a “markup” of any costs or for “generic administrative services or expenses,” it said. Kee nevertheless kept invoicing APT for those charges despite failing to provide “management support” or “qualified field personnel in a timely manner,” it said. At one site, Kee workers “arrived too late to perform any work at that location,” it said. After APT reassigned Kee to a second work site, Kee’s personnel “were tardy yet again,” it said. When presented with the opportunity to assist APT with the work, Kee’s crew “stood idly by watching APT’s staff work,” it said. By relying on Kee’s contentions it could “adequately assist” APT in the growth of its business, APT lost profits and “customer goodwill” through Kee’s lackluster conduct, alleges the complaint. APT lost its contract with Samsung, “which would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. APT also “missed out on the additional job prospects” that Dish had to offer in its 5G network buildout, “which also would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. 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, it said. 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.
Verizon, on behalf of itself and the town of Saugerties, New York, seeks a seven-week extension to Aug. 18 of the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment “to accommodate the parties’ continued good faith efforts to resolve this matter" via settlement, counsel Scott Olson of Young/Sommer wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Northern New York in Albany in a letter Friday (docket 1:22-cv-00107). Olson thinks the parties “have agreed to the general terms and conditions of a settlement,” and he expects soon to “memorialize” those terms and conditions in a draft stipulation and order, he said. Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers allege Saugerties unlawfully refused to act on a cell tower application before the shot clock’s expiration, in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2301190046).