AT&T sued the owners of vehicles involved in a July 2022 accident that damaged an above-ground AT&T utility box containing conduits, cables and other facilities, said its Tuesday complaint (docket 24CV007483) in California Superior Court in Sacramento. The complaint names Andrea Duran, Daniel Duran Lopez and Does 1 and 2, who were operating the vehicles involved in the collision that damaged the AT&T utility box in Sacramento. Andrea Duran operated her vehicle "so as to strike another vehicle" that was lawfully entering the intersection, causing that vehicle to collide with the AT&T facilities, the complaint said. Causes of action are motor vehicle negligence, trespass and trespass for chattel. AT&T seeks damages of $80,591.70 for the cost of repairing the equipment, overhead costs and loss of use of the facilities, the complaint said.
Danella, a company that services utilities, was performing work for National Grid replacing utility poles in Syracuse in May 2021 when it removed and transferred Verizon’s wireless facilities from an old pole to a new one without the carrier’s authorization, alleged Verizon’s Feb. 26 complaint in New York Supreme Court in Onondaga County, which the defendant removed Wednesday (docket 5:24-cv-00478) to U.S. District Court for Northern New York in Syracuse. For utility poles to which Verizon's facilities were attached, Danella was required to contact the carrier at the time of installation of each utility pole, “to coordinate with Verizon so that Verizon could transfer its facilities to the new pole at the time of installation,” said the complaint. Danella attached Verizon's facilities to the new pole using "J" hooks, “which was an improper method of attachment of the communication facilities to the utility pole,” it said. Over time, the "J" hook failed to support Verizon's cables, said the complaint. The "J" hook fell from the pole, and the cables became detached, it said. The cables, which were low-hanging because of their improper attachment to the pole, were severed in June 2022 when they were struck by a motor vehicle, it said. Verizon conducted repairs by splicing new cables into position, it said. “As a “direct and proximate result of the incident,” the plaintiff sustained damages of nearly $110,000 for the costs of repairing and replacing its facilities, which it now seeks to recover from Danella, the complaint said. But the damages that Verizon allegedly suffered were caused in whole or in part by Verizon’s own “culpable conduct,” said Danella’s March 22 answer to the complaint.
AT&T contractor Star Construction “denies every material allegation of wrongdoing” in the complaint by the Wetumpka, Alabama, water works and sewer board alleging that Star pierced an 8-inch terracotta sewer line when servicing the carrier’s underground telecom cables (see 2403250002), said Star’s answer Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00182) in U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. The defendant “specifically denies that any wrongful act or omission on its part or the part of its employees, servants, agents, or anyone acting on its behalf, probably or proximately caused any injury or damage” to the Wetumpka sewer board, said its answer. Star alleges that the plaintiff “bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before any award of damages can be made,” it said.
Verizon and Ocean City, New Jersey, seek a two-month extension of the remaining discovery deadlines in their personal wireless services facility dispute (see 2308140028) “in the interests of minimizing the time and expense of potentially unnecessary discovery,” they wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Skahill for New Jersey in Camden Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04370). The parties, over the past two months, have exchanged written interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, said their letter. During that time, the parties “have also continued to work diligently and collaboratively to identify potential alternate locations for the installation of the proposed wireless facility in order to try to resolve this matter via settlement,” it said. Under the proposed new deadlines, the date for completing fact discovery would be extended to June 28 from April 26, said the letter.
U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip ordered Oyster Bay to issue Crown Castle within 30 days "all approvals and permits required" for the installation and operation of its small cells in the town's public rights of way "without the imposition of any further requirements or fees," said her signed judgment Thursday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). She ordered the town to pay Crown Castle nearly $258,000, including interest. The judge granted summary judgment March 13 for Crown Castle on all three of its Telecommunications Act claims against the town (see 2403140018).
Denco Construction damaged Crown Castle’s underground cable in July 2019 while excavating with mechanized equipment at a location in Cape Coral, Florida, alleged Crown Castle’s complaint Monday (docket 362024CC002279A001CH) in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County, Florida. As a result of the defendant's actions, Crown Castle “sustained disturbance to its rights of use or servitude,” and damage to and loss of the cable, which has resulted in actual damages of slightly more than $23,200, said the complaint. Denco’s actions “constituted an intentional interference with Crown Castle’s disturbance of its rights without justification,” it said.
Counsel for all parties in Verizon’s small-cells dispute with Monmouth County, New Jersey, agree that “it may be beneficial” to schedule an initial settlement conference, with clients in attendance, they wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Brendan Day for New Jersey in Trenton Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). They asked the judge to schedule the settlement conference for the morning of April 19, “which is the only common date of availability for all of the parties,” said their letter. Verizon alleges that the county’s denial of its application to install nine small cells in the public rights of way violated Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act because the denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record (see 2309080048). The judge’s March 7 memorandum order granted seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents' motion to permissively intervene as defendants in the dispute (see 2403080039).
Bed-and-breakfast owners Barbara and Everett Knudson, newly granted intervenor-defendant status in support of Walla Walla, Washington, in its cell tower fight against AT&T (see 2403080031), want the U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland to declare that the carrier isn’t entitled to approval of its proposed wireless communication facility, said the Knudsons’ answer Monday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) to AT&T’s complaint. The company failed to satisfy Walla Walla municipal code requirements, as explained in the city’s hearing examiner's Nov. 2 decision denying AT&T’s cell tower application, said their answer. Those requirements are imposed on a “competitively neutral basis,” consistent with Section 254 of the Communications Act, it said. They’re necessary “to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers,” it said. The court should dismiss AT&T’s complaint with prejudice, it said.
U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta granted the motion of Roswell, Georgia, letting it substitute Ben Levitan as its expert witness in the city’s cell tower fight against T-Mobile, said the judge's signed order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). Ronald Graiff resigned unexpectedly March 2 as the Roswell expert, citing stress from the assignment (see 2403110001). T-Mobile vigorously opposed the city’s substitution motion, arguing that it was in effect a last-minute strategy for replacing Graiff because it realized his work was inadequate. But Totenberg found there was no credible evidence indicating “bad faith or deviousness” on the city’s part to use Levitan as a substitute expert, the judge’s order said. The city’s counsel promptly notified the court of Graiff's issue and “expeditiously moved to identify a new expert,” it said. The need for technical issues in this matter to be “properly presented” to the court “is obvious,” it added. The court found Roswell's motion for expert substitution "reasonable and supported by good cause,” said the order. In addition, the court ruled that granting its substitution motion “is necessary to prevent the harsh prejudice” that would result if the city was deprived use of a substitute expert, it said. Over T-Mobile’s strong objections, the court won’t confine the city’s new expert to giving expert testimony as a “virtual ventriloquist” for Graiff, it said. The court will require that Levitan “produce an expert report and be subject to a deposition, to ensure that T-Mobile has an adequate opportunity to prepare for the evidentiary hearing” in June and to be sure it’s not prejudiced by the substitution of counsel, said the order. On T-Mobile’s request that the city reimburse its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the work and depositions associated with the switch in experts, the court “reserves review of the merits of this request to after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing,” it said.
An AT&T contractor, Star Construction, penetrated an 8-inch terracotta sewer line with a 4-inch casing holding AT&T’s underground telecom cables, causing the Wetumpka (Alabama) Water Works and Sewer Board to incur $125,000 in expenses, alleged the board’s March 5 complaint, removed Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00182) to U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. The board “continues to incur expenses” associated with the weekly flushing of the line, and “additional significant expenses will be incurred in the ultimate resolution of this situation,” said the complaint. The “most promising resolution” would be for the board to abandon the sewer line and let AT&T’s cables remain where they are, but “significant expense” will be required to install a new sewer line to “bypass the troubled area,” it said. It’s the board’s position that it didn’t cause the problem, and that AT&T and its contractor should be required to reimburse the board for the expenses incurred in resolving the issue, said the complaint. AT&T denies liability “for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor,” said AT&T’s answer. AT&T alleges that the board "bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before any award of damages can be made," it said.