U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip entered a text-only order Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) holding in abeyance the two motions to intervene in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village of Muttontown until District Judge Joanna Seybert’s decision on the village’s anticipated motion to dismiss. Dunst ordered the parties to file a joint report by Feb. 17 informing the court whether they will request a stay on discovery in light of the motion to dismiss. AT&T is suing to force Muttontown to approve construction of a 150-foot cell tower to remedy an allegedly significant service gap (see 2301200043). Before the court are two motions to intervene from about 30 village residents seeking to block the tower for fear it will damage their property values and aesthetics.
Terra Towers’ complaint alleging American Tower International improperly withdrew from an $800 million Latin American telecom tower project agreement called Project Codu (see 2301030035) “is without merit and should be dismissed as a matter of law,” said ATI’s motion Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-20009) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. “The parties never entered an agreement,” nor did they ever sign a “signed a definitive agreement,” said ATI. “The parties never even signed a term sheet reflecting the terms of the deal,” it said. All negotiations were nonbinding, “as is evident from the numerous term sheets the parties exchanged during the many months Project Codu was negotiated, ultimately in futility,” it said. “A breach of contract claim cannot survive based on the facts alleged here.”
Building owner Olcan III “neglected its property for years, failing to conduct the routine upkeep and care required to maintain the building,” alleged Global Tower in a memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Maryland supporting its motion to dismiss Olcan’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Olcan’s amended complaint alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits” (see 2211140050). It seeks $75,000 in damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and public nuisance. But Global Tower’s lease space “occupies only a small portion of the building’s rooftop,” said its memorandum. Instead of addressing the damage caused by its own neglect, Olcan “filed this lawsuit in an attempt to coerce Global Tower into paying for repairs at the property,” it said. Olcan’s assertions “amount to nothing more than unsupported, threadbare ‘defendant harmed me’ allegations that are insufficient to state a claim as a matter of law,” it said. Olcan “baldly asserts it has suffered harm, but does not specifically identify the harm or how Global Tower caused it,” it said.
Contractor Horizon Underground denies “each and every allegation” in Extenet’s negligence complaint that its employees damaged Extenet’s underground cable and facilities while excavating, boring and trenching without Extenet’s consent (see 2212200067), said Horizon’s answer Monday (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas. Horizon “pleads entitlement to all defenses” under chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, including “the provisions regarding reduction of damages, credits for settlements, joint and several liability, contribution, and indemnity,” it said. Extenet’s complaint seeks damages of $34,454, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and further relief.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sought a court order Thursday granting the state immediate possession of property owned by Crown Castle and other entities in Galveston County for a highway improvement project, said his petition (docket CV-0091156) in Galveston County Court. The state made a “bona fide” offer to acquire the property under Texas’ property code, but plaintiff and defendants have been unable to agree on the value of the real estate “to be condemned” or the damages resulting from the state’s acquisition, Paxton said. He asked that special commissioners be appointed, as provided by law, to assess the owners’ damages and to grant the state immediate possession -- pending the results of further litigation -- upon its deposit of the amount of damages awarded and costs awarded to property owners, with the court subject to the order of the property owners. Crown Castle didn't comment
With mediation having failed this month in T-Mobile’s rooftop antenna dispute with three Bronx landlords (see 2301170036), U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for Southern New York signed a scheduling order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) setting a March 31 deadline for completing all nonexpert discovery. The order anticipates a bench trial will take up to two days but doesn’t set a trial date. T-Mobile asserts it has the right under its long-term rooftop leases with the landlords to upgrade its telecommunications equipment on the buildings’ rooftop, said the order. T-Mobile asked the landlords to sign a form required by the New York Fire Department to allow the upgrades to proceed at each site, it said. According to T-Mobile, the landlords refuse to sign the form without valid reason and “are trying to hold up the work needed to improve the telecommunications in and around these urban buildings,” it said. “The issue is one of contract interpretation,” it said. The defendant landlords also seek “proper compensation” for T-Mobile’s “additional use” of the rooftop space, it said.
Contractor Y&Y Underground Services caused nearly $6,200 in damage to Crown Castle’s telecom cable near an intersection in Miami while excavating with mechanized equipment in January 2019, alleged Crown Castle’s Jan. 20 complaint (docket 2023-001806-SP-26). Y&Y “acted negligently” by failing to excavate in “a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” alleged the complaint, filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County. Crown Castle seeks reimbursement for the loss of the use of its cable, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. Y&Y didn’t comment Wednesday.
Verizon and the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, asked U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston to enter their agreement for judgment settling their cell tower dispute, said their joint motion Monday (docket 1:22-cv-11789). Verizon sued Acushnet Oct. 20, alleging the town violated the Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 requirement that any local government decision to deny a request to deploy personal wireless services facilities be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record (see 2210200041). The settlement says Acushnet will vacate its Sept. 20 denial of Verizon’s application and grant the carrier a special permit authorizing construction of a 150-foot-tall monopole cell tower, said the motion. The court will retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the judgment but will otherwise dismiss Verizon’s claims with prejudice, with each side to bear its own court costs, said the proposed order.
AT&T and Core Communications continued finger-pointing Friday in the latter’s legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T. The two sides disagree on who bears the burden of proof in showing the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls (see 2212280001). Defendant AT&T refused to pay plaintiff Core for its access services, claiming nearly all the calls that CoreTel affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia connected were fraudulent. Core’s arguments it provided access services on “actual calls originated by genuine end users -- and did not bill for improper robocalls -- misstate the law” by failing to acknowledge “the default rule that plaintiffs ordinarily bear the burden of proof,” said AT&T’s opposition brief (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Core’s argument “is also premised on absurd and unreasonably narrow views of its common carrier obligations,” views that the FCC already said are “unlawful,” it said. Core is also wrong in claiming its access services tariffs, which Core unilaterally drafted, “somehow excuse it from proving that it provided genuine access services, and did not route or enable improper robocalls,” said AT&T. “Simply because Core elected not to include detailed tariff provisions that bar access charges on improper robocalls does not mean that such charges are authorized by the tariffs.” Core’s opposition brief argued AT&T is trying to convince the court “to create new telecommunications law to use not only as a shield against CoreTel’s claims, but also as a sword to use against other carriers in other compensation disputes.” AT&T is asking for the court’s blessing “to do what it has done here on a larger scale: withhold all monies it owes to a carrier (even when AT&T was paid for the same traffic by its own customers),” said Core. AT&T’s arguments are “better suited for a rulemaking proceeding at the FCC advocating for the imposition of new and additional burdens on wholesalers or intermediate carriers,” said Core. “This, however, is a collection action, not a rulemaking proceeding,” it said. CoreTel “has a burden to prove a breach of contract, and a breach of contract only,” it said.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a Jan. 30 dial-in mediation conference in AT&T’s appeal of a district court’s Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against the city of Los Altos, California, said an order Wednesday (docket 22-16432). It’s at least the seventh mediation conference scheduled since AT&T’s appeal was docketed Sept. 20. The city rejected AT&T’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046). The district court ruled AT&T's subsequent lawsuit was moot because the city replaced the 2019 law this year. AT&T’s opening brief in its appeal is due Feb. 22, and Los Altos’ answer brief is due March 24. AT&T’s optional reply brief is due 21 days from the service date of the answer brief.