Crown Castle and Ocean City, Maryland, are asking the U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore to extend the stay of their case for another 60 days as they pursue a final settlement, said their joint status report Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-01812). Under the terms of their Oct. 17 settlement agreement (see 2310170011), certain “conditions precedent are required to take place” before the parties can file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, said the report. The parties are in the process of completing those steps, it said. They ask that if the case isn’t jointly dismissed before the expiration of the 60-day stay extension the court require them to submit a second joint status report about “the status of the conditions precedent to dismissal,” it said. Crown Castle sued Ocean City in July 2021 to reverse what it called the city’s unlawful denial of its application to install telecom services equipment in the public rights of way on three new streetlight poles. The city countersued in December 2021, alleging Crown Castle breached the requirements of a 2017 rights of use agreement with the municipality.
U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee scheduled oral argument for Friday at 10 a.m. CST on Verizon’s Dec. 4 motion for a preliminary injunction against the city of Milwaukee (see 2312050022), said a text-only docket notice Friday (docket 2:23-cv-01581). Verizon seeks the injunction to force Milwaukee to issue all permits necessary for the installation of small cells and special poles in the city’s Deer District in time for July’s Republican National Convention in the Fiserv Forum. The preliminary injunction motion is on an expedited briefing schedule because Verizon contends it needs approval of its small-cells applications by Jan. 29 to be sure that the special poles and equipment it needs for the installations will be ready in time for the convention. Verizon contends that the city’s denials violate Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, and that the small cells are needed to prevent coverage gaps and dropped calls during the convention. The city maintains that it can’t approve the small-cells applications for land within the Deer District that it leased away to private entities and now doesn’t control.
Comutel Solutions, a support services contractor for data, video and voice networks, caused more than $34,000 in damages to a Crown Castle underground cable while excavating with mechanized equipment in January 2020 in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, alleged Crown Castle’s complaint Friday (docket 502024CC000204XXXAMB) in 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County. Comutel’s action “constituted an intentional interference with Crown Castle’s disturbance of its rights without justification,” said the complaint. Crown Castle’s cable “constitutes movable property, for which Crown Castle has the right of peaceable, undisturbed possession,” it said. Comutel “interfered with said possession when it knowingly and intentionally excavated” without maintaining “due clearance” of the cable, it said. Crown Castle alleges Comutel failed to adhere to "all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations and all applicable industry standards and guidelines as they relate to the protection of underground utilities," said the complaint.
AT&T removed to U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Alexandria Friday a complaint (docket 1:24-cv-00022) filed Nov. 20 in the 10th Judicial District Court for Natchitoches Parish in which the Travelers Property Casualty Co. seeks to recover nearly $530,000 for its client, Loboda Properties, for damage that AT&T and its contractor, Deviney Construction, caused to an underground electrical conduit near a commercial retail building that Loboda owns in Natchitoches. The building suffered a power outage that affected several tenants on Nov. 22, 2022, the same day that Deviney was installing a fiber optic cable for AT&T, said the complaint. “Before boring the underground hole for the fiber optic cable, Deviney failed to properly inquire about, or further investigate, the route and depth of the underground electrical conductors despite the open and obvious location of the pad-mounted transformer relative to the electrical service at the building,” said the complaint.
Walla Walla, Washington, denies that the 65-foot faux pine tree cell tower that AT&T proposes to install is needed to close a service gap and provide wireless services, 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 Dec. 1 complaint (see 2312040002). All of AT&T’s claims, other than federal claims "cognizable" under Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, are time-barred under Washington’s Land Use Petition Act because AT&T didn’t timely file a petition, said the city’s answer. AT&T also failed to satisfy the requirements of the Walla Walla municipal code, it said. The code’s provisions are imposed on “a competitively neutral basis,” and are consistent with Section 254 of the TCA, it said. The code is necessary “to preserve and advance universal service,” protect the public safety and welfare, ensure continued quality of telecommunications services “and safeguard the rights of consumers,” it said. The city urges the court to dismiss AT&T’s complaint with prejudice, and to declare that it didn’t violate any provision of the TCA’s Section 332, it said.
Milwaukee and its public works commissioner, Jerrel Kruschke, seek the dismissal with prejudice of Verizon’s Nov. 24 complaint to force the city to approve the installation of four small cells on newly constructed poles in the public rights of way in the city’s Deer District in time for next summer’s Republican National Convention (see 2311270034), said their answer Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-01581) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The pedestrian mall outside the Fiserv Forum, site of the July 15-18 convention, is leased to the Wisconsin Center District and subleased to Dear District LLC and "is not right-of-way" for the purposes of the FCC's enforcement of the Telecommunications Act, said the answer. Milwaukee and Kruschke “admit and affirmatively” allege that Verizon initially proposed collocating the small cells on existing poles that were not owned by the city, it said. The existing poles are owned by the Deer District LLC, and neither state nor federal law authorizes the city “to require a third party to allow Verizon to collocate on poles owned by the third party,” it said. The defendants also “affirmatively allege that Verizon has alternatives to the proposed small cell installations,” it said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip is recommending that U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert grant the motion of Muttontown, New York, to dismiss all claims in AT&T’s September 2022 cell tower complaint for its failure to properly make a legally justiciable claim, said Dunst's report Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). Seybert referred the case Oct. 26 to Dunst for his recommendation (see 2310270055). AT&T alleges Muttontown unlawfully denied its application to build a 165-foot-high cell tower to remedy a significant coverage gap. The village contends that its planning board and its site and architectural review board had no subject-matter jurisdiction over AT&T’s tower application, so there’s no justiciable controversy between the company and those entities. It also argues that AT&T’s claims against those bodies must be dismissed under Article III. Dunst finds that AT&T’s shot clock violation claims under the Telecommunications Act are “are abstract and speculative,” said his report. It’s also long settled that Article III limits the subject matter of federal courts to justiciable cases or controversies, it said. AT&T’s allegations don’t demonstrate “any actual controversy” against the village or its various boards, it said. There’s no claim in AT&T’s complaint that, if taken as true, would demonstrate that any of these entities had jurisdiction to approve the proposed cell tower, it said. The defendants argue that the claims against Muttontown’s zoning board should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because AT&T doesn’t plausibly allege violations under the TCA or applicable state statutes, and the magistrate judge agrees, said the report. It’s difficult, for example, to see how the zoning board could have violated the TCA’s shot clock, it said. Much like the shot clock claim, AT&T provides only “cursory legal allegations” in support of its claim that Muttontown’s denial effectively prohibited AT&T from providing wireless services, said the report. To pursue a “valid” prohibition claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that defendants “rejected a proposal to remedy an existing gap in coverage by rejecting an application that was the least intrusive means of closing that gap,” it said. But AT&T’s complaint has no “factual allegations” that the proposed tower “was the least intrusive means of closing the service gap,” said the report. In fact, the complaint “provides only one cursory allegation on this point,” it said.
AT&T seeks equitable relief, declaratory judgment and expedited review challenging the “unlawful denial” by Jennings, Louisiana, of AT&T’s application to build an 80-foot wireless telecommunications facility within the city’s jurisdiction, said its complaint Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01769) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles. AT&T has sought for “several years” to build a wireless facility in Jennings, located about 40 miles east of Lake Charles, said the complaint. But the city “has consistently frustrated these efforts” by refusing to issue the approvals and permits necessary to develop the facility, even though AT&T is entitled to develop the facility under the city’s ordinances, it said. The complaint names Phillip Arceneaux, in his official capacity as city inspector, as a co-defendant with Jennings. The complaint marks the second time the parties have been before the court as a result of the city’s violation of Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, said the lawsuit. The court in the first lawsuit granted AT&T summary judgment on Sept. 22, finding that the city violated the TCA “by failing to resolve AT&T’s applications,” it said. The court ordered the city to “render a decision” on AT&T’s applications by Nov. 21, it said. Jennings complied with the order when it denied the applications on Nov. 14 and when it provided a written denial a week later, said the complaint. But in so doing, the city again violated the TCA, it said. The denial was unlawful under the TCA because it wasn’t supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, it said. It also effectively prohibited AT&T from offering wireless services in the city, and it discriminated against AT&T, “relative to other providers of wireless service,” it said. As a result of the city’s “willful thwarting” of the congressional goal of rapidly developing telecommunications facilities, AT&T has “no choice but to again file suit” to require Jennings to permit the building of a new wireless facility, said the complaint. AT&T needs the facility to fill a “significant gap” in its wireless network coverage in and around the city, it said. AT&T “is entitled to an order” directing Jennings to grant its application, it said.
Verizon filed suit against Lavallette, New Jersey, and its council to challenge their “unreasonable and unsupported denial” of the carrier's application for permit approval for the installation of five small wireless facilities within the borough’s public right of way, said its complaint Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-23072) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. The proposed SWFs are necessary to remedy a significant gap in reliable wireless service, and are the least intrusive means to remedy that gap, said the complaint. The denial materially inhibited the provision of personal wireless and telecommunications services, in violation of Section 704 of the Communications Act, it said. The borough denied the application without substantial evidence contained in the written record, and unreasonably delayed the application, it said. Lavallette also illegally based the denial on the federally preempted issue of environmental effects of RF emissions, it said. The borough also imposed “unreasonable and prohibitive” application and code requirements, including unreasonable, excessive and prohibitive escrow charges and application fees, that materially inhibit or limit Verizon’s ability to provide personal wireless and telecommunications services to the public. The borough’s conduct warrants injunctive relief mandating that it issue all required approvals for the construction of the SWFs under the Communications Act, the complaint said.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Skahill for New Jersey in Camden will convene a telephone status conference Feb. 16 at 10:30 a.m. in Verizon’s infrastructure lawsuit against Ocean City, New Jersey, said Skahill’s signed scheduling order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-04370). Verizon seeks expedited review of its allegations against Ocean City, New Jersey, for the city’s “unreasonable and unsupportable” denial of Verizon’s application for “minor site plan approval” to build and install a personal wireless services facility (see 2308140028).