Decisions loom for the magistrate judge presiding over AT&T’s lawsuit to force Muttontown, New York, to approve construction of a 150-foot-tall cell tower to remedy a service gap. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for the Eastern District of New York in Central Islip, in a text-only entry Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-5524), ordered the parties to meet and confer on a joint report due Jan. 19. It said the parties should discuss whether Dunst should wait for a decision on the village’s request for a pre-motion conference on its anticipated motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint before ruling on two motions from about 30 village residents to intervene in the case to block the tower. AT&T and the village oppose the motions to intervene (see 2301030042), but the residents argue their interests in protecting their property values and the aesthetics of their homes aren't represented by the parties in the case (see 2211030048).
American Tower International removed to U.S. District Court for Southern Florida the Dec. 12 complaint in the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami in which Terra Towers alleges ATI “improperly withdrew” from an $800 million Latin American telecommunications tower project agreement without justification (see 2212160042). ATI “does not waive any rights or defenses to which it is otherwise entitled” in Terra’s breach of contract complaint, and it expressly reserves the right “to assert all such defenses at a later time” and to file counterclaims against Terra, said the notice of removal Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-20009).
The law is “well-settled” that “neighboring landowners” don't have “sufficient interest in the property or transaction to intervene as of right” in a Telecommunications Act action, said AT&T in a memorandum of law Friday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. AT&T opposes two motions to intervene from 30 resident property owners in Muttontown, New York, who are seeking to block the carrier from building a 150-foot-tall cell tower in their village. “Whatever interest the neighbors may have” in the fate of the cell tower in Muttontown, “it is adequately represented by the board that considered the application,” said AT&T. Due to the “expedited nature” of TCA actions, “controlling authority also rejects permissive intervention due to the inevitable delay caused by adding parties,” it said. Notwithstanding “the volume of cases affirming that neighboring homeowners have no right to intervene,” the resident property owners “improperly try to argue the merits and openly admit that they will challenge any resolution that allows construction of a facility,” it said. “The effort to avoid the core issue of intervention and to focus instead on the merits is improper, as is the overall strategy of delay, both of which confirm the wisdom of the decisions denying intervention in cases such as this.” The residents contend AT&T is colluding with the village to get the tower built over the objections of the local zoning appeals board, which opposes the project (see 2210200034).
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Crown Castle’s request for a two-week deadline extension to Jan. 23 to file its appellee brief against the city of Pasadena, Texas, said a text-only entry Wednesday in docket 22-20454. Pasadena seeks reversal of a district court’s Aug. 2 decision granting Crown Castle summary judgment (see 2212090044). Pasadena says the minimum spacing and undergrounding requirements in its design manual for Crown Castle's small-cell installations are “facially valid” and consistent with the city’s authority. In granting summary judgment for Crown Castle, U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas in Houston said a “plain reading” of the manual shows the spacing requirement for small-node networks is “clearly more burdensome” than the requirements applicable to other users of the public rights-of-way. Pasadena filed three 30-day deadline extension motions to file its principal brief since its appeal was docketed before the 5th Circuit denied its last request. Crown Castle's request for an extension was its first.
Crown Castle is “unlawfully holding” onto premises “with force” that it leased for a cell tower in Eugene, Oregon, despite the lease’s expiration, alleged landlord Ryan Goshen Properties (RGP) in an eviction complaint (docket 22LT18280) Wednesday in Oregon Circuit Court for Lane County. The complaint cites notices of expiration dated February and April 2021, referencing a February 1998 lease agreement between a prior lessor, Paul Wilkins, and the original lessee US West, to which Crown Castle is the successor in interest. RGP will consider entering into a new lease with Crown Castle under conditions that include a one-time five-year term through March 2027, with no renewal option, said the complaint. Crown Castle didn’t comment Thursday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford for Western New York in Rochester signed an order Wednesday (docket 6:19-cv-06583) scheduling a March 31 pretrial conference in the consolidation of three infrastructure lawsuits against the city of Rochester (see 2212200065). Common to the three complaints brought by Crown Castle, ExteNet and Verizon are their allegations that Rochester’s wireless deployment 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. The bench trial to begin on June 1 is “a day-certain trial that will not be adjourned except for the trial of criminal cases which take precedence,” said Wolford’s order. The trial will continue June 2, “and on additional dates as necessary to be scheduled.” Lawyers for the various parties told Wolford during a status conference Tuesday they estimate the trial will take three to four days.
CNSP filed an amendment of its articles of incorporation with the New Mexico secretary of state changing its corporate name to NMSurf, said its notice Tuesday (docket 22-2131) in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. NMSurf has long been the company’s “d/b/a” designation, said the notice: “It is the same company with a different name.” The wireless ISP is appealing the U.S. District Court for New Mexico order upholding a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe (see 2211230073).
The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted CNSP a one-week deadline extension to Jan. 17 to file an opening appellant's brief in its infrastructure dispute with Santa Fe, said a text-only entry Tuesday (docket 22-2131). The wireless ISP is appealing the U.S. District Court for New Mexico order upholding a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe (see 2211230073). CNSP counsel Richard Glassman’s motion said he needs the extension to make up for the time he spent recovering from COVID-19, for which he tested positive on Dec. 9. The motion for an extension, CNSP’s second this month (see 2212020009), was unopposed, said Glassman.
Employees of Horizon Underground cut and damaged ExteNet’s underground cable and facilities while excavating, boring and trenching “without ExteNet’s consent,” alleged the plaintiff in a Friday complaint charging Horizon with trespassing and negligence (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st District Texas Court in Dallas County. Horizon failed to “properly train, instruct and supervise” its employees not to operate motorized equipment without determining the exact location of the plaintiff’s facilities “by safe and accepted means,” said the complaint. ExteNet seeks damages of $34,454, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and further relief. A Monday notation showed a dismissal for want of prosecution on the docket with a hearing date set for Feb. 10. ExteNet didn’t comment Tuesday.
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner for Maryland signed a letter order Friday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) rescheduling a Feb. 7 settlement conference to March 12 in Crown Castle’s infrastructure complaint against contractor Black Electric. Her previous requirement still stands that the parties are to exchange a settlement demand and offer before the conference, and she set a new Feb. 27 deadline for the submission of ex parte letters summarizing the status of the case, including the history of settlement talks (see 2212120012). Crown Castle alleges Black Electric’s workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge spanning the Susquehanna River, but Black Electric denies culpability and seeks to dismiss the complaint.