U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta understands that neither plaintiff T-Mobile nor defendant Roswell, Georgia, will file an interlocutory appeal of her March 17 opinion and order, said an order she signed Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464) on “next steps in the case” for resolving the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment. Her opinion and order said the FCC’s September 2018 small-cells declaratory ruling can’t be applied retroactively to Roswell’s 2017 denial of T-Mobile’s cell tower application (see 2303210036). Before holding a telephone status conference that Totenberg scheduled for April 26 at 2 p.m., she wants counsel and clients to confer over whether the parties should proceed with the previously continued evidentiary hearing before the court from 2018, said her order. She asked how that can be done “in the most efficient manner feasible given the passage of time, the potential availability of new additional alternative sites, and the business, technological, and resource developments that have occurred since 2018.” She also asked whether it would “make sense” to proceed with an amended or new T-Mobile tower application and hearing before the Roswell city council, “given the passage of time since the last application,” and other “considerations” and “relevant factors,” said her order.
The parties in a cell tower access dispute “have engaged, and continue to engage, in meaningful negotiations,” said a Monday status update (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in response to a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Graham March 31 (see 2304030026) in District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Graham granted a temporary 14-day restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring defendant Thomas Branham to deliver keys for a locked gate to plaintiff STC Two. Plaintiffs requested an additional 14 days Monday, to April 24, saying the parties would benefit from additional time to resolve the pending claims and counterclaims before the court sets case management deadlines. STC Two and Global Signal alleged Thomas 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 (see 2303270025). 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. STC’s trespass has been “knowing and intentional,” resulting in “unconsented to and a malicious violation of” the grant of easement and Branham’s use of his land, he said.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively scheduled oral argument for the week of June 5 in the city of Pasadena, Texas, appeal against Crown Castle, said a court notice Thursday (docket 22-20454). Pasadena wants the 5th Circuit to reverse the district court’s Aug. 2 decision granting Crown Castle summary judgment in its infrastructure legal fight with the city. 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.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford for Western New York in Rochester, during an initial pretrial conference Friday, denied without prejudice Extenet’s motion in limine to preclude expert testimony from a city official during the consolidated bench trial scheduled to begin June 1 on challenges to Rochester’s wireless deployment fees (see 2303270002), said a minute entry entered by the court. Wolford also denied without prejudice Verizon’s motion to bar from evidence as inadmissible hearsay the cost spreadsheet from Louie Tobias, Rochester’s director-telecommunications and special projects. Both motions had the support of Extenet (docket 6:20-cv-07129), Crown Castle (docket 6:20-cv-06866) and Verizon (docket 6:19-cv-06583), which brought the three now-related cases to assert that Rochester’s fees significantly exceed a reasonable approximation of the city’s actual costs of maintaining the rights-of-way used or occupied by telecom service providers. Wolford set the next telephone status conference in the case for May 10 at 9 a.m., asserting the in-person bench trial remains set for June 1 at 9 a.m.
U.S. District Judge James Graham for Southern Ohio granted a temporary 14-day restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring defendant Thomas Branham to deliver keys for a locked gate to plaintiff STC Two, said the Friday order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. STC Two alleged that 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 (see 2303270025). 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. STC’s trespass has been “knowing and intentional,” resulting in “unconsented to and a malicious violation of” the grant of easement and Branham’s use of his land, he said. Branham said STC failed to complete "to the satisfaction of the City of Columbus” the permit process, causing the city to look to him for noncompliance with permit ordinances. Also, Branham said, STC risked disturbing the occupancy of his other tenants, in violation of the lease, and “may have failed to provide” an insurance certificate, also in violation of the lease. STC won’t be harmed financially if it’s enjoined from its "unlawful trespass."
All claims and defenses between AT&T and the city of Liberal, Kansas, are dismissed without prejudice, said their joint stipulation Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-01264) in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita. Each party will bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, said the stipulation. AT&T sued Liberal in November, alleging the city violated the Telecommunications Act when it denied AT&T’s application for permission to build a 150-foot-tall wireless communication monopole facility and related equipment to be located on a local golf course (see 2211250013). AT&T said then it needed to install the facility to remedy “significant service deficiencies” in its personal wireless service coverage in the area.
AT&T seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the denial by Kootenai County, Idaho, of AT&T’s June 15 application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility in the northwest corner of the state near the Washington border, said the carrier’s complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. The proposed facility includes a 150-foot-tall lattice tower with a five-foot lightning rod installed at the top of the tower and related ground equipment on a seven-acre undeveloped parcel of land that's zoned “agricultural suburban,” it said. The tower would be fashioned from galvanized steel, “with an anti-glare finish to best blend with the surrounding area,” it said. AT&T needs the proposed facility to close a “significant” wireless service gap in the county, and it’s “the least intrusive means” to remedy that gap, it said. The local board of county commissioners approved AT&T’s application Oct. 27, but the board granted reconsideration and reversed the approval Feb. 28, concluding that the original approval was made in error, it said. The denial “is not supported by substantial evidence,” in violation of the Communications Act’s Section 332, it said. The county “has effectively prohibited AT&T’s installation of telecommunications and personal wireless service facilities,” also in violation of the statute. The denial also came more than 150 days after AT&T’s submission of a complete application, in violation of the FCC’s shot clock, it said. AT&T seeks an expedited review of its complaint as federal law requires, it said. The county didn’t comment.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher for Maryland signed a settlement order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) dismissing Crown Castle’s claims against contractor Black Electric, with each side to bear its own costs. The entry of the order “is without prejudice to the right of a party to move for good cause within 30 days to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated,” it said. Black Electric denied the allegations in Crown Castle’s Sept. 29 complaint that its workers damaged a conduit holding telecom fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge spanning the Susquehanna River on U.S. 40 between Havre de Grace and Perryville (see 2211160009).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for Eastern New York in Central Islip set an in-person settlement conference June 8 at 11 a.m. in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York, said a minute entry Monday (docket 2:22-cv-07807). All fact discovery in the case is to be done by Aug. 15, with all expert discovery to be finished by Nov. 30, said the entry. AT&T alleged in a Dec. 22 complaint that Oyster Bay Cove and its planning and zoning appeals boards subjected AT&T to an “unreasonably protracted” application process to approve an 85-foot-tall cell tower, ultimately failing to act on the application before the last-extended expiration of the Telecommunication Act’s shot clock Nov. 23 (see 2212230054).
Amberwell owes Crown Castle nearly $33,000, including late fees, for fiber solutions and ethernet services contracted for and performed, but never paid for, allege Crown Castle’s complaint Friday (docket N23C-03-231) in Delaware Superior Court. The complaint alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeks recovery of the invoiced charges, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs.