Lake County, Montana, denies it violated the Telecommunications Act when it rejected Vertical Bridge’s applications to build a cell tower to remedy a gap in wireless coverage near the Finley Point area of Polson (see 2308170002), said the county’s answer Monday (docket 9:23-cv-00091) in U.S. District Court for Montana in Missoula. Vertical Bridge failed to show that the proposed tower was the least intrusive means of remedying the gap in coverage, or that it would remedy that gap, it said. Discovery in the case hasn’t begun, and the county is uncertain “what affirmative defenses may apply if this case goes to trial,” it said. Discovery, trial preparation and the facts of the case “may make some of the affirmative defenses applicable,” which is why they are being raised now “to avoid being waived,” it said.
AT&T is asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai for Oregon to reconsider and reverse his Oct. 25 opinion and order granting summary judgment for Lane County, Oregon (see 2310260038), and that he approve AT&T’s application that the county denied to build a 150-foot cell tower on a five-acre parcel of land near Oregon’s Pacific Coast, said AT&T’s motion Friday (docket 6:22-cv-01635). In dismissing AT&T’s case, the judge held that AT&T failed to exhaust its remedies under Oregon’s administrative land use process. Despite Lane County's final action to deny the tower application, Kasubhai ruled that AT&T was required to take yet another administrative step, and appeal that local decision to Oregon’s land use board of appeals before AT&T could present a federal claim under the Telecommunications Act. But the judge’s decision “was incorrect and should be reconsidered and reversed,” said AT&T’s motion. The “plain language” of the TCA, plus a “clear reading” of Oregon statutory law, “all dictate that Lane County’s decision was the required final action for a TCA claim,” it said. AT&T’s claims “are ripe for adjudication,” it said.
Interrogatories and the first requests for production of documents are due Dec. 15 in discovery in T-Mobile’s cell tower fight against the village of Chestnut Ridge, New York, according to a case discovery plan and scheduling order signed Tuesday (docket 7:23-cv-05852) by U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel for Southern New York in White Plains. T-Mobile alleges that Chestnut Ridge violated Section 704 of the Communications Act through its “unreasonable and unsupportable denials” of T-Mobile’s applications to build a 105-foot monopole cell tower (see 2307110008). All fact discovery in the case is to be completed by May 3, and all expert discovery is to be done by Aug. 19, said the scheduling order. T-Mobile's counsel, with Chestnut Ridge’s consent, proposed the scheduling order to the judge in a letter Tuesday. “The parties are amenable to exploring a settlement of this litigation, whether now or upon the completion of discovery,” said the letter. They agreed to the proposed schedule “ito provide the parties with sufficient time to try to reach such a settlement at various stages of discovery,” it said.
All Phase I discovery in T-Mobile’s cell tower fight against Oyster Bay, New York, will be complete by Jan. 12, and an in-person status conference is scheduled for Jan. 29 at 11 a.m. EST in the Central Islip courthouse, said a text-only scheduling order Wednesday from U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Shields for Eastern New York. T-Mobile sued Oyster Bay July 13 for Telecommunications Act violations for the town’s “unreasonable and unsupportable denial” of T-Mobile’s application for a rear yard variance necessary to install and operate a wireless telecom facility to remedy a significant gap in wireless services in the area (see 2307140001). The town is challenging T-Mobile’s lawsuit on constitutional grounds (see 2308090016). It argues that T-Mobile’s claims violate the 10th Amendment “by commandeering local municipalities to issue zoning approvals and building permits,” despite local objections and compliance with state and local “substantive and procedural law.”
Verizon was guilty of “no wrongful conduct,” which was “the proximate cause of the damages complained of” in the Oct. 18 counterclaim of Monmouth County, New Jersey (see 2310190027), said Verizon’s answer Wednesday to that counterclaim (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. Verizon alleges the county’s denial of an application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights of way wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record, as the Telecommunications Act requires, and that the denial also constituted a material inhibition of service, in violation of the TCA’s sections 332 and 253. The counterclaim asserted that the county is entitled to a judgment that Verizon’s submission to the county engineer wasn’t a proper application “for purposes of the TCA.” It’s also entitled to a judgment that the county’s standing ROW agreement with Verizon doesn’t cover SWFs “that are to be installed on newly constructed poles,” said the counterclaim. But the counterclaim’s contentions “are without factual or legal basis and are frivolous,” said Verizon’s answer. The carrier demands judgment against the county dismissing its counterclaim with prejudice, plus interest, court costs, attorneys’ fees “and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable,” it said.
A telephone conference is set for Dec. 11 at 2 p.m. EST with counsel for Verizon, Monmouth County, New Jersey, and the seven local residents who seek to intervene in the county’s defense against Verizon’s complaint to force approval of an application to install nine small wireless facilities in the public rights of way (see 2309080048), said U.S. Magistrate Judge Brendan Day for New Jersey in Trenton in a text order Monday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). The judge is convening the conference to discuss the residents’ motion to intervene and “other scheduling matters,” said the order. Verizon opposes the motion to intervene, and the county has issued a statement of non-opposition to the motion.
Construction contractor King Cable caused more than $18,000 in negligent damage to AT&T’s underground telecommunications facilities when excavating at a location in Plantation, Florida, in August 2020, alleged AT&T in a complaint Friday (docket COSO-23-007159) in the state's 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County. King Cable had a duty “to follow the requirements and obligations” of Section 556, Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act, said the complaint. Yet it failed to contact the statute's One Call System or an AT&T representative “before excavating in the area of known or probable underground facilities,” it said. Section 556 requires excavators to contact 811 and have underground facilities marked at least two full business days before beginning any excavation or demolition. The contractor also failed to take “all reasonable precautions” to prevent contact or damage to AT&T’s cables, as Section 556 requires, it said. AT&T seeks recovery for damages, taxable costs and “such other and further relief” as the court deems “just and equitable,” it said.
American Tower seeks a $3.9 million default judgment against wireless internet service provider TPT SpeedConnect, plus more than $75,000 in attorneys’ fees and court costs, for failing to answer its May 25 breach of contract complaint, said American Tower’s motion Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01336) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. The complaint alleges that TPT breached 60 license agreements involving the installation and operation of TPT’s telecommunications equipment on multiple cell towers that American Tower or its subsidiaries owns or operates (see 2305300003). The motion seeks an accompanying order authorizing American Tower to remove and dispose of TPT’s equipment at each of the 60 sites. The motion also seeks a declaration that the default judgment is enforceable against any TPT “successor entities.”
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton handed Verizon a small victory Thursday when he administratively terminated the motion of seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents to dismiss Verizon’s complaint to force Monmouth County’s approval of an application to install nine small wireless facilities in the public rights of way, said his text order (docket 3:23-cv-18091). Verizon had requested a stay of the residents’ motion to dismiss until their motion to intervene is decided because the court hasn’t yet determined whether the putative intervenors are parties to Verizon’s action against the county. Without intervenor status, said Verizon, the residents lack standing to file a motion to dismiss. The residents had argued that there was no basis for not considering the motions together because the arguments in both were “necessarily intertwined” (see 2311020040). The residents’ motion to dismiss will be reinstated, “if appropriate,” following the court's decision on the intervention motion, said Shipp’s order. He cited the court’s “inherent power to control the matters on its docket.”
Counter-defendant Debra Brown denies that American Tower subsidiary Ulysses is entitled under its counterclaim for a declaration that the wireless communication easement on Brown’s property in Goshen, Indiana, is “valid and in full force” and allows Ulysses to operate a wireless communications facility on the property, said Brown’s answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00842) in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in South Bend. Brown contends that the easement is “invalid,” said her answer. Brown sued Aug. 16 in Elkhart Superior Court to nullify the easement on her residential property, and to chase multiple telecom companies from the parcel of real estate that’s “burdened” by that easement (see 2309150006). Alltel, American Tower, Ulysses and Verizon removed her complaint to federal court Sept. 14.