AT&T and Los Altos, California, should call into a mediation conference Monday at 1 p.m. PST, said 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mediator Roxane Ashe in a Tuesday order (case 22-16432). The court held some mediation conferences already in AT&T’s appeal of a district court's Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against Los Altos (see 2211230066). The city rejected the carrier’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046).
The village of Muttontown, New York, and its various component boards oppose the Nov. 2 motion to intervene filed by 30 resident property owners who seek to block AT&T’s construction of a 165-foot-tall cell tower, attorneys for the village told U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip by letter Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The residents aren't entitled to intervention by right, nor are they entitled to “permissive intervention,” said the village. AT&T previously said it also opposed the motion to intervene (see 2211110002). AT&T sued Muttontown Sept. 15 for an order granting all variances, permits and approvals necessary for the cell tower construction to proceed. Named as defendants in the complaint were the village itself, plus its board of trustees, planning board, site and architectural review board, and zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The 30 residents contend all but the ZBA, which opposes the cell tower, are colluding with AT&T behind their backs to get the tower approved, likely by settling the case. An added worry, say the residents, is that the ZBA is represented in the case by the same attorneys who will argue on behalf of the other component boards that the tower’s construction should proceed.
Plaintiff Verizon Wireless assented to a motion by the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, and five members of the town’s zoning board of appeals 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 2210200041), said the motion (docket 1:22-cv-11789). Verizon and Acushnet are engaged in settlement talks, and the deadline extension “will preserve limited public resources,” said the 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.
The city of Liberal, Kansas, violated the Telecommunications Act when it denied AT&T’s application for permission to build a 150-foot-tall wireless communication monopole facility and related equipment to be located on a local golf course, alleged AT&T in a complaint Wednesday (docket 6:22-cv-01264) in U.S. District Court for Kansas in Wichita. AT&T seeks to install the facility to remedy “significant service deficiencies” in its personal wireless service coverage in the area, it said. AT&T “considered several potential locations” for the proposed facility, but each “proved infeasible or impermissible” based on the city’s ordinance interpretations and application denials, “including one site for which AT&T previously applied for a special use permit and was denied,” it said. AT&T’s proposal to place a monopole at the golf course “is the only feasible option for and least intrusive means of filling the significant gap in coverage in the area,” it said. The site has been used for commercial purposes for more than 100 years, and AT&T’s proposed use “would be consistent with that underlying use,” it said. The city’s denial “has effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services within the meaning” of the statute’s Section 332, it said. Municipality officials didn’t respond to emailed requests for comment.
The U.S. District Court in New Mexico denied CNSP’s motion to reconsider the court last month upholding a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe (see 2210120030). “Given the substance of the Motion and the already-pending appeal, a reply would not aid [the court’s] its adjudication of the issue,” Judge Kenneth Gonzales ruled Nov. 15. An opposite conclusion by a New York federal court in Verizon Wireless v. Rochester (6:19-cv-06583) isn’t binding on the New Mexico court, he said. The FCC’s 2018 wireless infrastructure order’s effect “is a new issue, and this Court surmises it will be the subject of ongoing litigation,” said Gonzales. “If or when the standard governing right-of-way fees for wired internet service changes, this Court will dutifully apply it.” Waiting for the district court, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 lifted a pause on CNSP’s Oct. 28 appeal (case 22-2131).
The village of Muttontown, New York, and its various component boards, defendants in AT&T’s lawsuit to allow construction of a 165-foot-tall cell tower (see 2211150040), seek a deadline extension to Dec. 30 to respond to two motions to intervene filed by 30 resident property owners seeking to block the tower, said their letter motion Wednesday to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip. The property owners plan to seek leave to file reply briefs, said the letter. The village is not opposed, so long as the reply briefs do not “materially delay the resolution of the intervention motions,” it said. Though permitting reply briefs is for the court to decide, the parties conferred and agree the briefs should be filed by Jan. 16, it said. The earliest possible date for in-person oral argument on the motions to intervene would be the week of Jan. 30, said the letter. The property owners say they worry AT&T is conspiring behind their backs with village officials to build the tower over the objections of the local zoning board of appeals. AT&T denies those allegations.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled separate dial-in mediation conferences for Monday in AT&T’s legal fight with the city of Los Altos, California, said an order Tuesday (docket 22-16432). The phone conference for counsel for plaintiff-appellant AT&T is set for 1 p.m. PST, with a second call for counsel for Los Altos to follow at 1:30 p.m. PST, said the order. AT&T is appealing a district court's Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against Los Altos for rejecting its application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046).
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals directed Verizon’s appeal in the case involving the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, to be held in abeyance while the parties try to mediate their dispute, said an order Monday (docket 22-16153). The court ordered the docket closed for administrative purposes until June 1 and directed the parties to furnish the mediator with an updated status report by May 25. “This administrative closure is not a decision on the merits and no mandate will issue in connection with this order,” said the court. Verizon’s Jan. 18 complaint in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose alleged the city violated the Telecommunications Act by failing to act within a reasonable period of time on Verizon’s application to place, modify or construct a personal wireless service facility within the city and that the municipality breached a settlement agreement that would have ended the dispute (see 2210270073). Verizon is appealing the district court’s June 30 dismissal of its complaint and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the city.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher for Maryland signed a scheduling order Monday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) setting an April 5 deadline for completing discovery in Crown Castle’s infrastructure complaint against commercial contractor Black Electric. A joint status report will be due when discovery is complete, said Gallagher’s order. Crown Castle alleges that the contractor’s workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge, but Black Electric last week denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice (see [Ref:2211160009[).
AT&T wants the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis to vacate and reverse the denial of Monroe County, Illinois, officials of AT&T’s application for zoning approval of a small-cells wireless communications facility, said the carrier Friday in its second motion for summary judgment (docket 3:20-cv-01327). The county’s decision-making process violated portions of the Illinois Counties Code governing approval of the telecommunications facilities, particularly the code’s “timeliness requirements,” said the motion. The court previously denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment, but granted AT&T leave to amend its complaint regarding the timeliness of the county’s decision to deny the application, it said. AT&T filed that amended complaint Oct. 15, alleges the county’s decision violates the Illinois Counties Code because the county failed to act on the application within 75 days after its submission, and therefore the application “must be deemed approved,” it said. Monroe County argues its zoning ordinance blocks AT&T from installing a tower since the carrier would have a storage facility on the site. The county's law says that no public office or principal repair or storage facilities may be maintained in connection with the site. Across the U.S., the wireless industry continues to litigate against some localities while settling with others over denied small-cell applications (see 2210170036).