The U.S. District Court for Western Missouri “lacks authority and jurisdiction” to grant AT&T’s request for an order approving its revised application for a conditional use permit to build a wireless communications facility in St. Joseph, said the city’s answer Tuesday (docket 5:21-cv-06114) to AT&T’s complaint. AT&T sued the city, alleging its denial of the revised application wasn’t supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, in violation of the Telecommunications Act. The district court further lacks jurisdiction to grant AT&T’s requested relief “because federal courts have no general power to compel action by state or municipal officials,” said the city’s answer. “Mandamus relief directing city officials to take certain actions is only available for ministerial actions, not discretionary ones like the issuance of a conditional use permit,” it said. The court “should treat this case as moot and decline to exercise jurisdiction,” said the city. AT&T asks the court to order St. Joseph to approve its revised application, but AT&T “has since filed a new application for a different tower at the same location,” it said. AT&T filed a separate lawsuit asking the court to order the city to approve the new application in the same location, but the court can’t “grant relief in both cases,” it said. AT&T also lacks standing “and has failed to allege an injury that is not hypothetical or self-inflicted,” said the city. AT&T “is currently providing wireless services for the same area,” and any injury AT&T might suffer is a consequence of its “own choices regarding available siting options,” not any actions taken by the city, it said. U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough, in an order last Friday, denied St. Joseph’s motions to dismiss AT&T’s complaint (see 2305150037).
Friday’s order from U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough for Western Missouri denying the city of St. Joseph’s motions to dismiss AT&T’s complaint applies the “same reasoning” as arguments AT&T raised in urging U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for Eastern New York in Central Islip to deny the motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint against the village of Muttontown, New York, AT&T wrote Seybert in a letter with supplemental authority Friday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). Bough denied the city’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s substantial evidence and prohibition of services claims under the Telecommunications Act, saying the city’s arguments challenging the factual adequacy of the substantial evidence claim weren't well-suited to a motion to dismiss, AT&T told Seybert. Bough “similarly dismissed the challenge to the prohibition of services claim,” it said. AT&T alleges in both lawsuits the municipalities’ denials of AT&T applications to build new cell towers failed to comply with the statute’s requirements that the denials be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. AT&T also alleges in both complaints the denials are an unlawful prohibition of the statute’s provisions for personal wireless services.
Crown Castle voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claims against Reliable Constructors (see 2304120057), said its notice Wednesday (docket 23-006554-CI) in 6th Judicial Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Florida. Each side will bear its own costs, said the notice. Crown Castle had alleged Reliable Constructors caused nearly $66,000 in damage to an underground Crown Castle telecom cable in April 2021 while excavating with mechanized equipment in Oldsmar, Florida.
Defendants in a negligence and public nuisance lawsuit didn’t maintain or prevent damage to the property arising from work on a cell tower installed on the roof of a two-story commercial building in Torrance, California, alleges building owner Aurea and tenant Ace Sushi, in a Tuesday complaint (docket 23TR-cv-01388) in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Torrance. The suit, which also alleges trespass, names cell tower installation company SBA Site Management, infrastructure firm Betacom, MasTec Network Solutions, project management company Vantage Telecom and T-Mobile USA Tower. Defendants “owed a duty of care” to prevent damage arising from work on the systems and to perform work in a “reasonable, skilled, and knowledgeable manner,” said the complaint. Due to defendants’ alleged breach of duty of care, plaintiffs suffered damages including cracking of the roof, “widespread leaks,” water intrusion, deterioration of the property, costs to repair damage and a reduction in property value, the complaint said. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and legal costs.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amended the briefing schedule in AT&T’s appeal of a district court’s Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against the city of Los Altos, California, to accommodate a mediation conference that was rescheduled to June 5 from Wednesday, said the circuit mediator’s order (docket 22-16432). AT&T’s opening brief is now due July 25, and the city’s answering brief deadline is now Aug. 25, said the order. AT&T’s optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief, it said. Los Altos rejected AT&T’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046). The U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled AT&T's subsequent lawsuit was moot because the city replaced the 2019 law in 2022.
STC Two filed an unopposed motion Monday to continue the preliminary pretrial conference in a cell tower land dispute in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus after the parties reached a settlement in principle. Property owner Thomas Branham installed a padlock at the entrance to the tower in breach of his contract, saying STC Two's tower wasn’t installed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted (see 2304170051). The parties are finalizing settlement documents, the motion (docket 2:23-cv-0076) said, and asked the court to continue the preliminary pretrial conference until at least May 23; Branham has no objection.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for June 7 at 9 a.m. CDT in New Orleans in the city of Pasadena, Texas, appeal against Crown Castle, said a calendar clerk’s notice Friday (docket 22-20454). Pasadena argues the minimum spacing and undergrounding requirements in the city’s design manual for Crown Castle's small-cell installations are “facially valid” and consistent with the city’s authority (see 2212090044). Crown Castle sued Pasadena in September 2020, asserting the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing requirement in the city’s design manual because that manual significantly limits the locations where it may install small-cell nodes and node support poles in the public rights of way.
Sept. 18 is the hard termination date for discovery in the T-Mobile and Crown Castle cell tower lease dispute with property owner Academy Medical (see 2211300001), said a scheduling order signed Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) by U.S. District Judge James Browning for New Mexico in Albuquerque. Jury selection and trial in a “trailing docket” will begin Jan. 8, it said. Lessee T-Mobile and subtenant Crown Castle allege Academy is blocking Crown Castle from upgrading the tower on space leased from Academy for Dish Network’s 5G network buildout. Academy countersued, alleging T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy prevented the property owner from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease (see 2301130001).
Following a status report from parties in a cell tower dispute, U.S. District Judge James Graham issued an order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) Friday extending the temporary restraining order for 14 days (see Ref: 2304110035]), said a filing Friday in District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The parties, STC Two, and property owner Thomas Branham, who owns the land where STC has a tower, have engaged in “meaningful negotiations” concerning potential resolution, said Graham, who didn’t oppose their request for an extension. “Considering both parties’ participation in negotiation and the benefits of giving the parties additional time to resolve the dispute” under terms of the original restraining order, “there is good cause to extend” it, he said. Branham, who owns the property where STC has a cell tower, installed a padlock at the entrance of the tower site, in breach of his lease to STC Two, and refused to remove it. Branham continued to obstruct the Global Signal company’s access to the cellsite “in blatant violation” of the lease, which entitles its employees to access “24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” the complaint said. In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. Another status report is due by April 24.
Contractor Reliable Constructors caused nearly $66,000 in damage to an underground Crown Castle telecommunications cable in April 2021 while excavating with mechanized equipment in Oldsmar, Florida, alleged Crown Castle’s negligence complaint Tuesday (docket 23-006554-CI) in 6th Judicial Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Florida. Reliable failed to excavate in a “careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” as required under Florida law, alleged Crown Castle in the complaint. The contractor also failed to take adequate measures to protect Crown Castle’s cable against damage, it said. It seeks recovery of the actual damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and “all other and further relief” that the court deems “just and proper.”