Roughly 30 Muttontown, New York, residents seek to intervene in the infrastructure fight between AT&T and the village because their homes “would be adversely affected, both aesthetically and economically,” if AT&T were permitted to build a 165-foot-tall cell tower in the community, said the residents’ attorney, Andrew Campanelli, in a declaration Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) at U.S. District for Eastern New York in Central Islip in support of their motion to intervene. Campanelli makes many of the same arguments as a previous resident intervenor, Russell McRory (see 2210200034), alleging AT&T is colluding with village officials to build the tower against the objections of the local zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The residents' and the defendants' interests are “not identical,” said Campanelli. “I submit that the interests” of plaintiff AT&T “are in line with the interests of all the defendants except the ZBA,” he said. “The ZBA is the only defendant that may not support a resolution to this action that would allow AT&T to build its tower.” The ZBA “is represented by the same attorneys for the other defendants who want AT&T to build its tower,” he said. “This conflicted representation will pave the way for a settlement among the existing parties that will be against the interests of the village residents,” and that’s their biggest worry, said Campanelli. He cited 11 local wireless infrastructure cases in the Eastern District alone that were settled “without any input from the resident property owners who stood to bear the greatest adverse impact from the proposed installations.” AT&T and village officials told the court this week that they oppose McRory’s motion to intervene (see 2210310037). Before filing their motion to intervene, the 30 residents sought consent from all existing parties in the case, “but were unsuccessful in getting consent from all of them.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for Southern New York scheduled a Rule 16 telephonic case management conference for Nov. 16 at noon EST in T-Mobile’s wireless infrastructure complaint against the landlords of three Bronx buildings, said his order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369). The landlords are rebuffing T-Mobile’s demands to sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access the leased space on their rooftops to upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004)
U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni for Massachusetts in Springfield granted AT&T’s unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of all deadlines in its infrastructure lawsuit against the town of Heath, said an electronic order Monday (docket 3:21-cv-30106). AT&T reached a tentative settlement agreement with the town and 10 of its resident intervenors but needed more time to draft and finalize the documents for the court’s approval (see 2210310031). AT&T sued in October 2021 to contest Heath’s allegedly unlawful denial of an application to construct and install a 180-foot-tall monopole cell tower to remedy a significant gap in wireless service coverage in the community. The judge ordered the parties to exchange “initial disclosures” by Nov. 30.
U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby for Maryland signed a scheduling order Wednesday granting the joint Oct. 18 motion of plaintiff Olcan III Properties and defendant American Tower for Olcan III to file an amended complaint and American Tower to file a responsive pleading under an extended deadline. The amended complaint is now due Nov. 15 and American Tower’s answer is due Dec. 6, said the order (docket 22-cv-02456). Olcan III filed suit Aug. 8 in Baltimore Circuit Court alleging American Tower breached an easement contract for the placement of a rooftop cell tower at a building it owns in Baltimore when it caused “significant damage” to the property, forcing Olcan III to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits. American Tower removed the complaint Sept. 27 to the Baltimore federal court.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter for Southern New York signed an order of reference Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) handing over T-Mobile’s complaint against three Bronx building landlords to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for “general pretrial” proceedings, including discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions and settlement negotiations. The landlords from whom T-Mobile is leasing rooftop space are rebuffing the carrier’s demands that they sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the company to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004).
AT&T reached a tentative agreement to settle its yearlong wireless infrastructure fight with the town of Heath, Massachusetts, and 10 of its residents who entered the case as intervenors, but the parties need a deadline extension to Nov. 28 to “draft, finalize, and execute a written agreement for judgment” to be filed with the court, said AT&T in an unopposed motion Saturday (docket 3:21-cv-30106) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Springfield. AT&T sued in October 2021 to contest Heath’s allegedly unlawful denial of an application to construct and install a 180-foot-tall monopole cell tower with antennas and related ground equipment crucial to remedying a significant gap in wireless service coverage. AT&T asserted the denial was not based on substantial evidence andin violation of Section 332 of the Communications Act. The 10 intervenors, who entered the case Jan. 18, said the town planning board acted properly when it denied AT&T’s application, mostly on aesthetic grounds. The residents hastily hired lawyers and drafted court papers, they said, “to protect their interests” when they learned that AT&T and Heath were seeking judicial approval of a settlement that would permit the cell tower project to go forward.
AT&T joins with the village of Muttontown, New York, and its various boards in opposing the Oct. 18 motion of resident Russell McRory to intervene in the infrastructure fight between AT&T and the village, company attorneys wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). Lawyers for the village wrote Dunst Friday to say McRory “is not entitled to intervention as of right.” Dunst ordered all parties to file “formal responses” to the motion to intervene by Dec. 16, and scheduled oral argument on the motion for Jan. 18 at 2 p.m. EST. AT&T’s Sept. 15 complaint alleges that Muttontown’s failure to approve its October 2021 application to build a “stealth” cell tower at the Village Hall obstructed the company’s ability to remedy a service gap in the community, in violation of the 1996 Telecom Act. McRory’s motion to intervene said his home “abuts the premises where the proposed cell tower would be located,” and residents like him “are not aligned” with the village board, which supports the cell tower, against the objections of the local zoning board of appeals (see 2210200034). McRory alleges AT&T conspired secretly with Muttontown officials to OK the cell tower -- allegations that AT&T denies as “categorically false” (see 2210210044).
Verizon’s opening brief deadline at the 9th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court was shifted to Nov. 30 from Nov. 2, and the answering brief due date from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, was moved to Dec. 30 from Dec. 2 (see 2210070046), said a mediation order Wednesday (docket 22-16153). 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. Verizon is appealing the district court’s June 30 dismissal of its complaint and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the city.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that Nevada's Video Service Law (VSL) doesn't allow Reno to seek a private right of action as it tries to get video franchise fees from streaming services Netflix and Hulu. In the opinion (docket 21-16560), Judges Susan Graber, Michelle Friedland and Lucy Koh said they wouldn't address the parties' disagreement over the meaning of "video service provider" under VSL "because it is clear that Reno lacks a cause of action under both the VSL and the Declaratory Judgment Act." Oral argument was in September (see 2209190055).
T-Mobile’s demands that three Bronx building landlords from which it leases rooftop space sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities “will result in the taking of additional roof space” by T-Mobile, said the landlords in their answer Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) to T-Mobile’s Sept. 30 complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Said T-Mobile’s complaint: “As a result of defendants' material breaches, T-Mobile requires a decree of specific performance and permanent injunction compelling each defendant to sign the required approval forms as requested and give T-Mobile their full cooperation.” Each lease stipulates that T-Mobile can use the rooftops "for the transmission and reception of radio communications signals" and for the construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of antennas, microwave dishes and equipment shelters, said T-Mobile. But the landlords responded that T-Mobile was seeking “a modification of prior agreements,” that it wasn’t entitled to injunctive relief and that any harm that came to T-Mobile “was the result of the actions or inactions or culpable conduct of third parties.”