Extenet contractor USIC Locating Services “generally denies each and every allegation” in Horizon Underground’s Feb. 10 third-party petition that it improperly located and marked Extenet’s underground utility cable and facilities during a 2021 excavation, causing nearly $35,000 in damages (see 2302200003), said USIC’s March 20 answer to the petition (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st Judicial District Texas Court in Dallas County. USIC, improperly named U.S. Infrastructure Corp. in the petition, “demands strict proof” from Horizon of its culpability, said its answer. “USIC would show that the negligent acts or omissions of some other individual or entity were the sole proximate cause” of Extenet’s alleged damages, it said. USIC demands a jury trial on Horizon’s allegations, it said.
Spectrum Pacific West and the city of Yuma, Arizona, filed a joint stipulation of dismissal Wednesday (docket 2:20-cv-01204) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix of Yuma’s counterclaims against the Charter subsidiary. The city seeks to dismiss its counterclaim with prejudice, said the stipulation. As a result of the city’s dismissal, “the matter will be closed,” it said. Spectrum sued Yuma in June 2020 over the city's alleged refusal to comply with Arizona's universal video franchising law (see 2303090024). Yuma’s now-dismissed counterclaims asserted Spectrum’s lawsuit breached the indefeasible right of use agreement that Time Warner Cable, Spectrum’s predecessor company, signed with the city over the use of Spectrum’s fiber capacity.
The “carelessness and negligence” of defendants Hanover Co., A & B Construction and Tennyson Electric caused $59,164 in damage to Extenet’s underground fiber cable when they excavated at a San Francisco location in April 2020, alleged Extenet’s March 17 complaint (docket CGC-23-605243) in California Superior Court in San Francisco. Unnamed are an additional 10 John Doe defendants, unknown to Extenet, whose “true names and capacities” will be identified in an amended complaint when they're “ascertained,” said the complaint.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied the Feb. 20 letter motion from Muttontown, New York, to stay discovery in its cell tower dispute with AT&T, pending a decision from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybold on the village’s motion to dismiss. Forcing municipal clients to spend taxpayer money for claims “that more than likely will be dismissed would not be appropriate,” said the village of its rationale for a discovery stay (see 2302210056). AT&T disagreed, saying its claims aren’t more than likely to be dismissed, “and the pending motion to dismiss does not justify a stay of discovery.” The court concludes that a stay on all discovery isn’t “warranted at this time,” said Dunst’s text-only order Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The parties strongly disagree “about the merits of the not yet fully briefed dismissal motion,” it said. Dunst doesn’t “presume to address the strength (or weakness)” of the village’s pending dismissal motion at this time,” it said. The court also rejects Muttontown’s “hypothetical arguments about the alleged burden and prejudice associated with not yet served discovery demands in this case,” it said. The imposition of a stay on all discovery certainly would impose an "obvious prejudice" on AT&T, said the order.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court granted appellee Crown Castle’s motion to supplement the record in the Pasadena, Texas, appeal to reverse the lower court’s granting of summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor in their long-running infrastructure dispute. U.S. Circuit Judge James Dennis signed the order Wednesday (docket 22-20454). Crown Castle argued successfully, with no Pasadena opposition, to supplement the case with four documents pertinent to the district court’s granting of Pasadena’s motion for a stay in the case pending the appeal’s outcome (see 2303090034). The documents are “material" to the city's representation in its reply brief that Crown Castle failed to oppose the stay motion and would give the 5th Circuit “a full picture of the proceedings,” said Crown Castle’s motion.
Plaintiff Wireless Contractors Association filed notice Wednesday (docket 16-2023-CA-000911-XXXX-MA) in the 4th Judicial Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida, of the voluntary dismissal of its claims against defendant New Age Telecom. Each party will bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, said the notice. WCA signed a Sept. 1 contract for New Age to furnish construction services for WCA’s projects on an as-needed basis for Dish Network installations in and around Jacksonville, said its Feb. 13 complaint (see 2302270002). It alleged New Age failed to satisfy all contractual conditions needed for it to be entitled to payment. New Age responded by filing four claims of lien against WCA totaling more than $84,000 in unpaid balances.
Even accepting landowner Olcan III Properties’ new allegations, its amended complaint “remains devoid of merit and fails to state a claim against Global Tower,” said the American Tower subsidiary in a reply Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Maryland, in further support of its motion to dismiss (see 2212070040). Olcan alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused it to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits. Recognizing the “threadbare” allegations in its amended complaint, Olcan “attempts to retroactively bolster the claims and add new allegations” in its opposition to the motion to dismiss to make the amended complaint “legally sufficient to survive dismissal,” said Global Tower. It’s improper to further amend a complaint in document filed in response to a motion to dismiss, it said. “Even if the amendment were allowed, the new allegations are inadequate,” and the amended complaint “remains legally deficient,” and should be dismissed, in its entirety, with prejudice, it said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Marian Payson for Western New York in Rochester adjourned Tuesday’s scheduled settlement conference to March 30 at 1:30 p.m. EDT in the three related infrastructure complaints brought by Crown Castle (docket 6:20-cv-06866), Extenet (6:20-cv-07129) and Verizon (6:19-cv-06583) challenging the city of Rochester’s wireless deployment fees, said a text-only entry in each of the three dockets. A single consolidated bench trial of the three cases is to begin June 1 and 2 (see 2212200065). Common to the complaints are the allegations Rochester’s fees significantly exceed a reasonable approximation of the city’s actual costs of maintaining the rights-of-way used or occupied by telecommunications service providers, in violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act.
AT&T opposes the Feb. 27 letter motion from Muttontown, New York, requesting a stay of discovery in AT&T’s cell tower lawsuit against the village, pending the outcome of Muttontown’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint, the carrier told U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in a letter brief Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). AT&T alleges the village violated the Telecommunications Act when it denied its application to build a 165-foot-high cell tower to remedy a significant coverage gap, and Muttontown moved to dismiss the complaint for AT&T’s alleged failure to properly make “a legally justiciable claim” (see 2303130040). The motion for a stay should be denied because Muttontown and its component boards can’t meet their burden of making a strong showing that their motion to dismiss “will result in the dismissal of all claims against all parties,” AT&T told the judge. “As a result, a stay would merely delay inevitable discovery, and prejudice not only AT&T, but also the public, which over recent years has come to depend primarily on reliable wireless telecommunications,” it said. A stay also would prejudice first responders, “who are being denied reliable access to FirstNet,” it said: “The right of all these persons and entities to an expeditious resolution of AT&T’s TCA claims would be frustrated by grant of a stay.” The defendants have “no rational basis to argue that dismissal of the highly fact sensitive TCA substantial evidence and prohibition of services claims” against Muttontown’s zoning board of appeals “is plausible, let alone likely,” said AT&T. Their stay brief doesn’t even address these claims, “as clear precedent establishes that stays of discovery are inappropriate when a motion to dismiss turns on fact-intensive issues that are not amenable to resolution on motion,” it said.
There appear to be “genuine disputes of material fact” between Charter’s Spectrum Pacific West and the city of Yuma, Arizona, “that would preclude granting summary judgment to either party,” said an order signed Thursday (docket 2:20-cv-01204) by Senior U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver for Arizona in Phoenix. The impasse prompted Silver to schedule a jury trial in the dispute for May 8, said the order. She didn’t preclude Spectrum or Yuma from filing a motion for summary judgment. But if a motion is filed and it’s found to lack a “good faith basis,” she’ll consider “imposing sanctions” on the offending parties. The parties are to confer in good faith and file a status report by March 23, “identifying whether either side will seek summary judgment,” said her order. Spectrum sued Yuma in June 2020 over the city's alleged refusal to comply with Arizona's universal video franchising law (see 2303090024). Yuma’s counterclaims assert Spectrum’s lawsuit breached the indefeasible right of use agreement that Time Warner Cable, Spectrum’s predecessor company, signed with the city over use of Spectrum’s fiber capacity. Spectrum’s argument that Yuma’s counterclaim for breach of contract is moot “appears unfounded in law and fact,” said the judge. Spectrum argues that when it voluntarily dismissed its claims against the city, that resolved the dispute presented in Yuma’s counterclaim because that counterclaim is effectively for “anticipatory” breach of contract, she said. “Spectrum appears to believe it never breached the contracts and, therefore, the counterclaim fails,” said her order. “But Spectrum’s understanding of the counterclaim is incorrect,” it said. Yuma’s counterclaim “is based on allegations that a breach of contract already occurred,” it said. The breach of contract counterclaim could only be moot if Spectrum had paid all the damages and provided all other relief the city seeks because of the alleged breach of contract, it said.