The U.S. District Court for Southern New York referred T-Mobile's wireless infrastructure dispute with three Bronx building landlords to the court’s “annexed” mediation program, said an order signed Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) by U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott. The landlords of rooftop space T-Mobile leases rebuffed the company's demand that they sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004).
Plaintiff AT&T and defendant Lane County, Oregon, propose that fact discovery be completed by April 1, and dispositive motions be filed by June 1, they said Tuesday in a joint Rule 26(f) report (docket 6:22-cv-1635) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Eugene. AT&T alleges it has been trying for more than a year to place a 150-foot-tall cell tower on a five-acre parcel of land in western Oregon to improve local wireless services, but the county denied approval of the proposed facility in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2210260009). The county responded by saying AT&T failed to exhaust its “administrative remedies” under local Oregon law (see 2211180029). AT&T and the county agree the lawsuit “likely will be suitable for resolution on summary judgment and, if not, that a summary judgment ruling may significantly affect the scope of any issues to be tried,” said the Rule 26(f) report. They asked that any further dates on the calendar be set after the court’s ruling on their anticipated summary judgment motions.
American Tower subsidiary Global Tower Holdings served notice Tuesday on the U.S. District Court for Maryland that it plans to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of property owner Olcan III Properties in a rooftop cell tower dispute, said a scheduling order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) signed by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby. “In light of the foregoing,” said Griggsby’s order, Global Tower’s motion to dismiss will be due Feb. 1, with Olcan’s response due March 1. Global Tower’s reply will be due March 15, it said. 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,” said the amended complaint (see 2211140050). It seeks $75,000 in damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and public nuisance.
Contractor R&Y Underground negligently caused more than $71,000 in “actual damages” to a Crown Castle cable when excavating with “mechanized equipment” at an intersection in Miramar, Florida, alleged Crown Castle in a Nov. 29 complaint (docket CACE-22-017496) in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County. R&Y failed to excavate “in a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” said the complaint. It also failed to take “adequate measures” to protect the cable, it said. R&Y didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Crown Castle and contractor Black Electric are “engaged in discussions” to resolve their legal fight or “narrow the issues in dispute,” they told the U.S. District Court for Maryland in a joint status report Monday (docket 1:22-cv-02497). They want the court to modify its Nov. 21 scheduling order “to facilitate that process and preserve resources,” said the report. Under the modified schedule, the discovery deadline would move to May 31 from April 5, and the dispositive pretrial motions deadline would move to July 14 from May 5, said the report. Crown Castle alleges Black Electric’s workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge, but Black Electric denies culpability and seeks to dismiss the complaint (see 2211160009).
U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni for Massachusetts in Springfield set a Dec. 13 videoconference at 10 a.m. EST on the amended agreement AT&T reached with the town of Heath to settle an October 2021 complaint arising out of Heath’s denial of AT&T’s application for a special permit and zoning relief for construction and installation of a wireless telecommunications facility (see [Ref:2212010037[), said an electronic notice entered Monday (docket 3:21-cv-30106). The parties reached a settlement agreement nearly a year ago, but the court rejected it, saying AT&T and Heath failed to provide evidentiary basis on which to evaluate the merits of the resolution.
The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals gave CNSP until Jan. 9 to file an appellant’s brief in an infrastructure dispute with Santa Fe (case 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). The court granted CNSP’s motion from the same day to extend the due date to Jan. 9 from Dec. 27, in a Thursday text entry. The WISP’s lawyers sought extension because of “previously planned extended out of town family trips for Thanksgiving and Christmas.” Appellees didn’t oppose the extension.
Judge Edith Brown Clement for the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the motion by the city of Pasadena, Texas, for a 30-day delay to Dec. 30 to file the principal brief in its appeal to vacate a lower court’s Aug. 2 order granting summary judgment to Crown Castle (see 2212010001), said an order she signed Friday (docket 22-20454). Clement granted Pasadena a seven-day stay to Dec. 8. Pasadena is “CAUTIONED that no further extensions will be given,” said her order. Crown Castle opposed Pasadena’s requested 30-day extension but consented to a seven-day postponement. It was Pasadena’s third extension request since its appeal was docketed Sept. 1 and the first that Crown Castle opposed. 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 (ROWs). 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 ROWs.
U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel for Massachusetts in Boston entered an electronic order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-11789) granting the unopposed motion of the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, for a deadline extension to Jan. 27 to answer Verizon’s Oct. 15 complaint that the town violated the Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 (see 2211290006). Verizon and Acushnet are engaged in settlement talks, and the deadline extension “will preserve limited public resources,” said the unopposed motion. Verizon alleges that when Acushnet and its board denied a Verizon application for a special permit to build and operate a proposed wireless facility, the town failed to put its denial reasons in a written decision, as the statute requires.
AT&T reached an amended agreement with the town of Heath, Massachusetts, regarding an October 2021 complaint arising out of Heath’s denial of AT&T’s application for a special permit and associated zoning relief to allow construction and installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, said a text of the agreement for judgment filed Wednesday (docket 3:21-cv-30106) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. The parties nearly a year ago had reached a settlement agreement, but the court denied it on grounds that they failed to provide any evidentiary basis on which to evaluate the merits of the resolution. The parties believe the amended agreement “to be in their respective best interests and a fair and reasonable resolution of the pending civil action,” said Wednesday’s filing.