Sant Construction caused nearly $13,000 in damage to AT&T’s underground telecom cables and facilities in April 2022 when excavating negligently at a site in McAllen, Texas, alleged the carrier’s complaint Tuesday (docket C-1314-24-D) in Hidalgo County Judicial District Court. The contractor “failed to take reasonable care” in protecting the existing buried cables, conduits and telecommunication facilities from damage by failing to determine the location of those facilities through “safe and acceptable means,” alleged the complaint. Sant violated the Texas utilities code by failing to properly notify “a recognized state notification center” no later than 48 hours before the excavation was to begin, it said. AT&T “is clearly a member of the class the statute was designed to protect, and the violation of this statute directly and proximately caused the damages forming the basis of this lawsuit,” it said.
After U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip granted summary judgment March 13 for Crown Castle on all three of its Telecommunications Act claims against the town of Oyster Bay, New York (see 2403140018), it’s the parties’ “joint position” that the only remaining issue in the litigation is the entry of a judgment against the town for the relief requested by Crown Castle, they wrote the judge in a status report Monday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). The judgment should order Oyster Bay, within 30 days, to issue Crown Castle “all building permits and any other approvals and permits required” for the installation and operation of its 23 small cells in the town's public rights of way, “without the imposition of any further requirements or fees,” said the report. Oyster Bay also should reimburse Crown Castle for $189,950 in excess fees, plus 9% interest, also within 30 days, it said.
U.S. District Judge Mark Norris for Western Tennessee in Memphis scheduled an April 2025 jury trial on plaintiff James Gragg’s allegations that Crown Castle has refused to vacate property he leased to the company to build a cell tower since the lease expired in April 2022 (see 2402090061), said a clerk’s notice of setting Friday (docket 2:24-cv-02087). Gragg seeks possession of his property, the restoration of his land and compensatory damages. Crown Castle admits only that it leased land in rural Tennessee from Gragg for “a period of years” to build and operate a cell tower, but denies Gragg’s remaining allegations that it refuses to surrender the premises and remove its structures (see 2403040008).
Altice hired Excell Communications in 2021 to perform telecommunication construction services in New York, and Excell subcontracted the work to Igtech, which is still owed $1 million for the project, alleged Igtech’s breach of contract complaint Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00317) in U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama in Birmingham. Igtech “timely performed” all its obligations under the contract, including connecting cables and wires from pole to pole, running them underground and splicing them in accordance with blueprints that Excell provided, said the complaint. It also performed wiring work on buildings owned by the New York City Housing Authority under Excell’s instructions and blueprints, it said. Igtech submitted a dozen separate invoices to Excell “itemizing the services performed and the amounts due,” said the complaint. Excell has failed to pay those invoices “despite repeated demands,” it said. As the owner of properties that have been improved through Igtech’s services, Altice and the NYCHA also “have been unjustly enriched,” and neither has compensated Igtech for that enrichment, it said.
AT&T failed to satisfy the requirements of the Walla Walla, Washington, municipal code, as explained in the city hearing examiner's Nov. 2 decision denying AT&T’s cell tower application, said the city’s answer Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland to AT&T’s first amended complaint (see 2312040002). The municipal code’s requirements are imposed “on a competitively neutral basis,” in compliance with the Telecommunications Act, and are necessary “to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers,” said the Walla Walla’s answer. AT&T also failed to “fully and adequately respond” to multiple requests made by the city for additional information on at least three different dates, and so AT&T’s claims “are barred by estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands,” it said. It asked that AT&T’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Employees of contractor Allen Family Enterprises damaged AT&T’s underground telecommunications cables and equipment while excavating in December 2022 at a site in Conway, Arkansas, alleged AT&T’s complaint Friday (docket 23CV-24-417) in Faulkner County, Arkansas, Circuit Court. Before excavating, Allen “failed and refused to comply” with the notice requirements set forth in Section 14-271-101 of the Arkansas code, said the complaint. That constituted negligence, for which Allen should be held liable, it said. Allen excavated with mechanized equipment or power-driven tools and equipment “in and around prohibited areas” where AT&T’s lines and property were located, it said. Allen was also negligent in that it failed to keep “a proper lookout” for AT&T’s property, it said. It also failed to take “reasonable steps” to protect AT&T property during its excavating activities, and failed to exercise “ordinary care” during those activities, it said. Allen caused AT&T to incur $17,628.25 for the costs of repairing its telecommunications cable and equipment, it said. AT&T’s telecommunications also have been weakened, “now being more prone to future problems and outages” due to Allen’s negligence, it said.
AT&T and defendant Walla Walla, Washington, agree to the dismissal with prejudice, and without costs or fees to any party, of count II of AT&T’s Dec. 1 complaint challenging the city’s denial of AT&T’s application to build a 65-foot cell tower (see 2312040002), said their stipulated motion Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. Count II alleges that the city's denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, as required by Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act.
U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta ordered Roswell, Georgia, to "proceed expeditiously" in its search for a replacement expert witness after its original expert resigned abruptly from the case days before he was to testify at this week’s evidentiary hearing, said Totenberg’s signed order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). Ronald Graiff had been Roswell’s expert witness on the case against T-Mobile since 2017, but he told the city Friday that his role was causing him too much stress and taking a toll on his physical and mental health, said a declaration Monday from the city’s counsel. Searching for a replacement expert as soon as possible “in Georgia and elsewhere” was necessary to comply with the “relevant disclosure rules,” and to allow plaintiff T-Mobile “a sufficient opportunity to depose the replacement,” said the order. The judge ruled in March that the FCC’s September 2018 small-cells declaratory ruling preempting aspects of local and municipal cell tower permit reviews is a “substantive rule” that shouldn’t be applied retroactively to Roswell’s 2017 denial of T-Mobile’s application to build a tower in a residential neighborhood (see 2303210036).
AT&T or agents it hired began installing utility lines and manholes sometime in April 2022 on property owned by Edward and Carolyn Schimmel, “without any permission to do so, and continued doing so after notified that they did not have permission to do so,” alleged the Schimmels’ complaint Monday (docket 2024CV0154) in the Court of Common Pleas in Wood County, Ohio. Demand has been made on AT&T to remove the installations, but AT&T has “refused and essentially ignored” those demands, said the complaint. When AT&T or its agents “wrongfully entered” the Northwood, Ohio, property on numerous occasions in April 2022, the Schimmels and city told them that no utility easement existed where they were working, said the complaint. The carrier or its agents caused damage to the land and to crops that were planted at that time, plus the loss of future crops and income, it said. AT&T has refused to reimburse the couple for that damage, it said. The company’s actions have taken a portion of the Schimmels’ property “out of farm production” and “essentially created a utility easement” on the property without compensating the couple, it said. As a result of those wrongful actions, the Schimmels have suffered monetary damages for legal fees, court costs, loss of equity and income and loss of use of the property in an amount exceeding $100,000, it said.
A court report and recommendation (R&R) that Crown Castle should be granted summary judgment against Oyster Bay, New York, on its claims that the town unlawfully blocked its applications to install 23 small wireless facilities in public rights of way (see 2401220028) was “well-reasoned,” said Crown Castle’s response Friday (docket 2:21-cv-06305) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. Each of U.S. Magistrate Judge Wicks’ “overarching” determinations, “has clear support in the undisputed evidentiary record in this case,” it said. Each, on its own, warrants an award of summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor, it said. The town’s written denial of the company’s applications isn’t supported by substantial evidence on record, in violation of Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, it said. Its denial effectively prohibited provision of wireless services, also in violation of Section 332, Crown Castle said. Oyster Bay’s denial also materially inhibits the ability of telecommunications providers like Crown Castle to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment, and therefore has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of telecommunications services, in violation of the TCA’s Section 253, the response said. The town’s objections to Wicks’ R&R “should be rejected as without merit,” said Crown Castle. “They completely ignore the undisputed material facts of this case, are based upon an incorrect standard of law,” and are contrary to well-established 2nd Circuit precedent, it said. The objections “are nothing more than a smokescreen” to hide the fact that the undisputed facts and unambiguous case law set forth in the R&R “conclusively demonstrate” that Wicks’ conclusions “are well-grounded and have clear support in the record and in the law,” it said. Crown Castle asks that the court adopt the R&R in its entirety and grant summary judgment in the company's favor on all counts, it said.