"Counsel must be prepared to set a trial date” for Verizon, ExteNet and Crown Castle lawsuits against Rochester, New York, at a Dec. 20 status conference, said a U.S. District Court for Western New York text order Friday (dockets 19-cv-6583, 20-cv-7129 and 20-cv-6866). The virtual meeting starts at 2 p.m., the court said. The court on Aug. 22 denied summary judgment motions by each industry plaintiff and the city. The companies say Rochester’s small-cell fees are unlawfully high.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for the Southern District of New York scheduled a telephonic continuation of Tuesday’s initial case management conference for Dec. 7 at 12:30 p.m. EST in T-Mobile’s infrastructure lawsuit against three Bronx landlords (see 2210270004). T-Mobile’s Sept. 30 complaint seeks a permanent injunction compelling each defendant to sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access their rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities. Giving T-Mobile the access it seeks will result in its taking of additional roof space, responded the landlords in their Oct. 26 answer to the complaint.
Commercial contractor Black Electric “generally denies each and every allegation” in Crown Castle’s Sept. 29 complaint that its workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge spanning the Susquehanna River on U.S. 40 between Havre de Grace and Perryville, said the contractor in its answer to the complaint Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) in U.S. District Court for Maryland. Black Electric asked the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, that judgment be entered in its favor, plus that an award be granted of “appropriate costs” and attorney’s fees. The alleged damages “were not caused or proximately caused by any actions or omissions” by Black Electric personnel, it said. Crown Castle’s claims “are barred, in whole or in part, by contributory negligence,” it said. Crown Castle seeks recovery of the $403,000 in costs for labor and equipment it said were required to repair the damage, plus interest and court costs.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts granted the joint motion of Vertex Towers and the town of Hubbardston, Massachusetts, to stay for 60 days the case involving Vertex allegations that the local zoning board is in violation of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act by denying Vertex’s application for a multi-user wireless communications facility (see 2210250001), said her electronic order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-11551). Vertex and Hubbardston “are in settlement negotiations and the requested stay will afford them an opportunity to fully explore” a resolution in the case, said their joint motion Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied Crown Castle’s Oct. 31 request for a pre-motion conference to discuss an expedited briefing schedule for its anticipated motion for summary judgment against the town of Oyster Bay, said Azrack’s text order Monday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). In waiving the court’s pre-motion conference requirement, she adopted the parties' proposed briefing schedule, said the order. Crown Castle is to file its motion for summary judgment by Dec. 23, and Oyster Bay will file its response by Jan. 27, it said. Crown Castle’s optional reply is due Feb. 13, it said. Crown Castle, in its year-old Telecommunications Act infrastructure complaint against the town, alleges the statute bars local prohibition of any interstate or intrastate wireless services (see 2211090003). Yet Oyster Bay’s zoning board has denied Crown Castle's request to install 23 small wireless facilities in the town “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the statute requires, it alleges.
The village of Muttontown, New York, and its component boards were granted a deadline extension to Nov. 28 to advise the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York of their position on the motion from 30 resident property owners to intervene in the case to stop AT&T’s construction of a 165-foot cell tower (see 2211110002), said a text order Monday (docket 2:22cv5524) by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in Central Islip. Dunst also extended to Dec. 13 Muttontown’s deadline to answer the AT&T complaint that asks the court to require the village to approve the tower. 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.
A Glen Burnie, Maryland, landowner is seeking $75,000 from a subsidiary of American Tower in U.S. District Court in Maryland, said an amended complaint filed Monday in docket 22-cv-02456-LKG. Global Tower Holdings’ use of an easement to access a cellphone tower on top of a building owned by Olcan III Properties has caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits,” said the filing, which seeks damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and public nuisance. Global Tower’s “actions with its equipment and its lack of maintenance and care of Plaintiff’s property which has caused substantial and unreasonable harm to Plaintiff,” said the complaint. A response from the tower company is due Dec. 6. American Tower announced its agreement to buy Global Tower Partners in September 2013 for $4.8 billion.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted the city of Pasadena, Texas, its second deadline extension in less than a month to file its brief in its appeal of an Aug. 2 decision by U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas granting Crown Castle summary judgment in its wireless infrastructure fight with the municipality. Pasadena’s brief was due Wednesday, and now is due Nov. 30, said a text order (docket 22-20454). Hittner’s order permanently enjoined Pasadena from enforcing sections of its design manual for the purposes of preventing Crown Castle from installing new small nodes and node support poles in public rights of way (see 2210250002). Crown Castle’s September 2020 complaint alleged Pasadena, under the “guise” of its design manual, implemented a restriction that requires network nodes and supporting poles in a public right of way to be located at least 300 feet away from all existing utility or other node support poles. The spacing restriction is “so onerous” it effectively prohibits Crown Castle from deploying a distributed antenna system network in the city because the spacing requirement eliminates the necessary node locations, in violation of the Telecommunications Act, alleged the complaint.
The town of Oyster Bay, New York, doesn't oppose Crown Castle’s request to file a motion for summary judgment in its year-old Telecommunications Act infrastructure complaint against the town, Oyster Bay lawyers wrote U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). Lawyers for the two sides have discussed a proposed briefing schedule that would have Crown Castle serve their moving papers by Dec. 23, they said. Oyster Bay’s opposition would be due Jan. 27, and Crown Castle’s reply Feb. 13, they said. The statute bars local prohibition of any interstate or intrastate wireless services, yet Oyster Bay’s zoning board has denied Crown Castle's request to install 23 small wireless facilities in the town “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the statute requires, said Crown Castle’s November 2021 complaint (see 2211010002).
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Wicks for Eastern New York in Central Islip entered an electronic order Sunday (docket 2:21-cv-06305) granting Crown Castle’s Friday joint motion with the town of Oyster Bay, New York, to adjourn sine die their Nov. 22 final pretrial conference amid Crown Castle’s announced plans to seek summary judgment in the nearly year-old wireless infrastructure case (see Ref:2211010002]). Also adjourned indefinitely is the parties’ Nov. 15 deadline to file their joint proposed pretrial order, said Wicks. If Crown Castle’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the joint proposed pretrial order will be due within 21 days of the denial order, he said. Crown Castle alleges that for more than six years, it has sought approvals from Oyster Bay to install 23 small wireless facilities to remedy significant gaps in reliable wireless services or to add capacity in high-demand areas. The company alleges the town’s zoning board has denied its request to install the facilities “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act requires, it said.