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.”
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts issued an electronic order Monday (docket 1:22-cv-11551) granting in part the joint motion of Vertex Towers and the town of Hubbardston, Massachusetts, a deadline extension for the parties to file a joint proposed schedule. Vertex’s Sept. 21 complaint alleges the Hubbardston zoning board of appeal denial of its application for variances to permit the construction and operation of a multi-user lattice style wireless communication facility is in “direct violation” of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act partly because the decision “is not supported by substantial evidence in a written record.” The facility is needed to remedy “a significant gap in wireless coverage,” and the denial “materially inhibits the provision of wireless services, including the ability to introduce new services or otherwise improve the existing services,” alleged the complaint. The joint Vertex-Hubbardston motion had asked for a deadline extension to Dec. 9, but “without more information as to the reason for the delay,” Burroughs’ order extended the deadline only to Nov. 15.
The 5th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court on Monday granted Pasadena, Texas, its deadline extension request to Nov. 9 to file briefing papers in its appeal of the Aug. 2 final judgment in which U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas in Houston granted Crown Castle’s motion for summary judgment in its wireless infrastructure legal battle with the city. Pasadena’s 5th Circuit filing deadline previously was Wednesday (docket 22-20454). Hittner’s order (docket 4:20-cv-03369) also 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. Crown Castle’s September 2020 complaint alleged that 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 Pasadena because the spacing requirement eliminates the necessary node locations, alleged the complaint.
The disputes between CenturyLink Communications as the “successor” plaintiff to Qwest, Level 3, WilTel and Global Crossing and defendant Peerless Network “have been long-standing and continue to evolve,” said Centurylink in a motion for partial summary judgment Friday (docket 1:18-cv-03114) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The case dates to a May 2018 complaint in which Peerless and its affiliates were accused of “systematic overcharging” for contracted and tariffed services. CenturyLink and the other named plaintiffs “have relationships with thousands of telecommunications carriers, and Peerless generates more disputes than any other carrier by an order of magnitude,” said the motion. “Even as this action has been ongoing, Plaintiffs were forced to file another lawsuit in Colorado against Peerless on entirely different claims,” it said. The motion seeks reimbursement of the funds already paid to Peerless, plus credits for the amounts previously withheld from Peerless. On the tariff-based claims at issue in the complaint, CenturyLink also seeks a declaratory ruling that Peerless can no longer assess those charges.
East St. Louis, Illinois, appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lower court's granting of a motion to dismiss a putative class-action complaint against defendant streaming services (see 2209230059), per an appeal notice filed Monday (docket 3:21-cv-00561) with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The city was suing the streamers for franchise fees it said they owed as video service providers.
The allegations against AT&T in the motion to intervene in the carrier’s infrastructure complaint against the village of Muttontown, New York, “are categorically false and completely at odds with the facts in this case,” emailed an AT&T spokesperson Friday. “As we demonstrated during the public hearing on this matter, this proposed cell site is necessary to serve our customers, including first responders, in and around the Village of Muttontown.” Muttontown resident Russell McRory alleged in his motion that AT&T and village officials conspired secretly to get the 165-foot cell tower approved over the objections of the local zoning board of appeals, and that AT&T’s claims the tower was needed to remedy in coverage gap in the area were a “myth” (see 2210200034).
The joint motion for a settlement between Crown Castle and the town of Riverhead, New York (see 2210200003), was granted, said a text order Thursday (docket 2:21-cv-00789) by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for the Eastern District of New York. She ordered the case closed. Crown Castle sued the town in February 2021 over “unreasonable delays and unsupportable effective denials” of its applications to install a public utility wireless telecommunications facility in the village of Calverton, New York.
Crown Castle and the town of Riverhead, New York, filed settlement documents Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York that would end their long-running infrastructure battle over a proposed communications facility in the village of Calverton (see 2210070046). Crown Castle sued Riverhead in February 2021 when it was “unable to secure the long-term viability” of leases on property where it operated existing towers, necessitating the applications to install a new facility. The company accused the municipality of violating the Telecommunications Act by “unreasonably delaying and effectively denying” its permit applications “without substantial evidence contained in the written record.” The settlement terms include an agreement for a Crown Castle subsidiary, Global Signal Acquisitions IV, to buy the property it currently leases from the existing owner, Lizem Associates. All parties agree that consummating the sale of the property by Jan 31 is a “material condition” of the consent order that would terminate the litigation. Should the property sale not be completed by Jan. 31 if not extended by mutual agreement, the consent order “shall be deemed null and void,” and any plaintiff “may reinstate the litigation,” said the settlement documents.
The Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 requires that any local government decision to deny a request to deploy personal wireless services facilities be in writing and “supported by substantial evidence in a written record,” said a Verizon infrastructure complaint Thursday against Acushnet, Massachusetts, and its zoning board of appeals. But when the board recently denied a Verizon application for a special permit to build and operate a proposed wireless facility, it didn’t put its denial reasons in a written decision, “and it has not made available a written record disclosing its reasons for the denial,” said Verizon. Section 332 “also forbids local governments from effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,” but the board’s denial of Verizon’s application “has just that effect” because it prevents Verizon “from filling an existing gap in coverage in Acushnet,” it said. Verizon is “entitled to an order” compelling the board to grant the “requested special permit,” it said. Acushnet town officials didn’t comment.
Real estate owner 1411 Division Street filed suit Tuesday to "recover" for T-Mobile’s “unlawful, forcible entry” onto its commercial property in Baltimore to service its telecom equipment, according to a trespass complaint (docket 1:22-cv-02690) in the U.S. District Court for Northern Maryland. The owner has been in the process of developing the property for affordable housing, it said. T-Mobile has a lease agreement with a third party, which itself has an easement agreement with the owner, that permits T-Mobile access to the telecom equipment on the property, it said. “But this easement agreement -- and necessarily, any lease with T-Mobile -- does not permit T-Mobile to occupy the property with trucks, workers, and a crane,” it said. “Nor does it permit T-Mobile to forcibly enter the property for the purpose of this unlawful occupation,” it said. “Yet that is exactly what T-Mobile did,” causing the owner “significant harm” by preventing it from fully developing its property, it said. The owner seeks unspecified money damages, plus a declaratory judgment that T-Mobile is not permitted to place its cranes, workers or vehicles on the property. T-Mobile didn’t comment Wednesday.