The seven residents of Belmar, New Jersey, who seek to intervene in Verizon’s wireless dispute with Monmouth County oppose Verizon’s request that the court stay briefing on their motion to dismiss Verizon’s complaint against the county until their motion to intervene is decided, their attorney, Anthony D’Artiglio of Ansell Grimm, wrote U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton in a letter Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). Verizon contends the residents are nonparties to its dispute with the county, and so they lack standing to bring their motion to dismiss (see 2310310007). But Verizon cites “no support” for its contention the motion to intervene must be decided before the motion to dismiss may be briefed, D'Artiglio told the judge. The two motions are “necessarily intertwined” because the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss inform whether the intervenors “should be permitted to intervene,” he said. Those arguments should be compared against the county defendant’s answer to determine whether the intervenors’ interests “are adequately represented” by the county, he said. “Simple judicial economy and fairness dictates” that both motions “be heard in tandem, after briefing,” he said. The intervenors submit that the motions “may be briefed in the ordinary course” and decided at the court’s discretion, said the attorney. But if the court is inclined to grant Verizon’s request to stay briefing on the motion to dismiss until after the motion to intervene is decided, the intervenors join in Verizon’s request for a scheduling conference “to further discuss this issue,” he said. The residents previously opposed Verizon’s request for the scheduling conference. Verizon sued the county to reverse its allegedly unlawful denial of an application to install nine small wireless facilities in the public rights of way to remedy a significant coverage gap in wireless service that grows worse in the oceanfront community's summer beach traffic.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis, acting on the parties’ agreement, dismissed with prejudice the remaining counts of AT&T’s complaint against the Monroe County board of commissioners and board of zoning appeals that weren’t previously granted summary judgment in AT&T’s favor, said the judge’s signed dismissal order Monday (docket 3:20-cv-01327). AT&T sued the county to reverse what it alleged was the unlawful denial of its wireless communications facility site request. AT&T won summary judgment on two of the counts specifically focused on the board of commissioners' failure to comply with the timing requirements under the Illinois Counties Code and the Monroe County Code of Ordinances when it didn’t act on AT&T’s site request within 75 days (see 2310020011). With Rosenstengel’s dismissal of the remaining counts, AT&T’s application is deemed approved under Illinois law, said her order. The county is ordered “to authorize AT&T to install its proposed facility and to issue all other permits required for installation, operation, and maintenance of the facility,” it said.
U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for Eastern New York in Central Islip referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for a report and recommendation the March 9 motion of Muttontown, New York, to dismiss AT&T’s cell tower complaint for the carrier’s failure to properly make a legally justiciable claim (see 2303130040), said Seybert’s text-only referral order Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). 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, and AT&T’s claims against those bodies must be dismissed under Article III.
The Sept. 27 motion of seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents to intervene in Verizon’s cell tower fight with Monmouth County (see 2309280027) should be denied for several reasons, said Verizon’s memorandum of law Monday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton in support of its opposition. As a preliminary matter, the putative intervenors, who also have filed a motion to dismiss Verizon's complaint (see 2310180031), have failed to comply with the terms of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by not including a “proposed pleading” with their motion to intervene, said Verizon's opposition memorandum. Even putting that "failure aside," the motion to intervene “suffers from several fatal flaws,” it said. The intervenors “fail to demonstrate a specific interest in any property that is the subject of this action beyond their general interest” as citizens of Monmouth County and two organizations -- Belmar Against 5G Towers and Children’s Health Defense -- that oppose Verizon’s technology, it said. Verizon hasn’t asserted any claims against the intervenors, nor could the causes of action have been pled against them, it said. The intervenors also failed to make any showing, “beyond simple speculation,” that Monmouth County won’t defend this case and protect any interest the intervenors may have, it said. Granting the motion to intervene also would “unduly delay this proceeding and prejudice the original parties’ rights,” especially in light of the Telecommunications Act’s requirements that this matter “be handled on an expedited basis,” it said.
Contractor U.S. Utility Services caused more than $23,000 in damage to Crown Castle’s underground fiber optic cable while excavating with mechanized equipment in February 2020 at a location in West Palm Beach, Florida, resulting in the loss of use of that cable, alleged Crown Castle’s negligence complaint Friday (docket 50-2023-CC-014005-XXXA-MB) in 15th Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County. Crown Castle’s cable “constitutes movable property, for which Crown Castle has the right of peaceable, undisturbed possession,” said the complaint. U.S. Utility “interfered with said possession when it knowingly and intentionally excavated” without maintaining “due clearance” of the cable, it said.
American Tower subsidiary Ulysses seeks a declaratory judgment in its favor and against plaintiff Debra Brown that the January 2009 wireless communication easement and assignment agreement on Brown’s residential property in Goshen, Indiana, “is in full force and effect and permits Ulysses to operate a wireless communication facility at the premises,” said Ulysses’ counterclaim against Brown Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00842) in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in South Bend. Brown’s complaint seeks to nullify the easement on her property and to chase multiple telecom companies, including Ulysses, from the parcel of real estate that’s “burdened” by the easement (see 2309150006). The easement grants Ulysses an exclusive perpetual right “for the use of the property for the transmission and reception of any and all wireless voice and data telephone and other wireless communication signals,” said its counterclaim. “Ulysses is in the business of owning, operating, and managing wireless infrastructure assets, including cell towers and rooftop communications sites,” it said. To operate a cell tower, the operator “must have real property rights that allow it to do so,” it said. “These rights can be obtained in various ways, including through a ground lease, an easement, or ownership of the fee simple interest in the property,” it said. Ulysses is a successor to T5 Unison Site Management as a party to the January 2009 easement agreement, it said.
Verizon may not assert a Telecommunications Act claim for Monmouth County’s failure to comply with the FCC’s 2018 shot clock order on small wireless facilities in denying Verizon’s application to install nine SWFs in the public right of way, said the county’s answer Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton to Verizon’s Sept. 7 TCA complaint (see 2309080048). Verizon alleges the county’s denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record, as the TCA requires, and that the denial also constituted a material inhibition of service, in violation of the TCA’s Sections 332 and 253. But the documents that Verizon submitted to the county in support of its application to install the nine SWFs in the public ROW didn’t constitute “a proper application” under the county’s regulations or Verizon’s preexisting ROW agreement with the county, said the county’s answer. Even if the Verizon documents did constitute a proper application, which the county doesn’t concede, the county acted on Verizon’s request “within the applicable shot clock,” it said. If and to the extent that the county failed to act within the shot clock, the failure to act “was reasonable under the circumstances,” it said. The county therefore didn’t materially inhibit Verizon “from introducing new services or improving existing services,” it said. 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,” said the county’s counterclaim. It’s also entitled to a judgment that the ROW agreement doesn’t cover SWFs “that are to be installed on newly constructed poles,” it said. To the extent that Verizon relies on the ROW agreement in support of its claims, Verizon is precluded from bringing this action under the TCA, it said. The county also seeks a judgment that Verizon “materially breached” the ROW agreement, it said. Seven residents of Belmar, New Jersey, who previously asked to intervene against Verizon’s complaint to force the county’s approval of the SWFs application, now seek the complaint’s dismissal (see 2310180031). U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp set a Nov. 20 deadline for responses to the residents’ motion to dismiss, said his text-only order Wednesday.
Garland, Texas-based Urbina’s Cable struck and damaged underground fiber cable owned by Southwestern Bell while excavating for cable for cable TV in Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2021, said a Monday petition (docket 017-347372-23) in Tarrant County, Texas, District Court. Urbina employees or agents failed to observe markings for the fiber cables that were properly located and marked, it said. Southwestern Bell incurred costs of $12,738 to repair the cables, it said. It named Urbina’s Cable “vicariously liable” for the negligent acts of its employees or agents under the respondent superior doctrine, meaning the negligent act was done with full authorization of the defendant, said the petition. The plaintiff asserts claims of trespass and negligence and seeks $12,738, plus prejudgment interest and legal costs.
Verizon seeks expedited judicial review of violations by Elkhart, Indiana, of Verizon’s federal rights under the Telecommunications Act for the city’s unlawful denial of its application to build a wireless telecom facility to remedy a “deficiency” in its cellular network that causes dropped calls, including emergency calls made to 911, said Verizon’s complaint Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00913) in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in South Bend. If the city doesn’t allow Verizon to build the proposed communications facility at the requested location, it won’t be able “to carry out its responsibilities under its FCC license or effectively compete in the local telecommunications market” in Elkhart, said the complaint. Impairment of Verizon’s telecom network stemming from the city’s denial “may cause irreparable harm” in the city, as a result of carrier’s “inability to service the needs of its customers and the community,” it said. The denial “effectively prohibits Verizon from providing wireless services to customers in and around the surrounding area,” in violation of the TCA, it said. It seeks an order prohibiting the city from further denying its application.
Crown Castle and Ocean City, Maryland, agreed to terms to settle their dispute in its entirety, with those terms incorporated and memorialized in a written agreement that’s now “fully executed,” said their joint notice of settlement Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-01812) in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore. The terms require “certain agreed steps to be accomplished” before dismissal of the case occurs with prejudice, said the notice. On that basis, the parties request that the case be stayed for 90 days, or until the parties file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, if that occurs earlier, it said. Crown Castle sued 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 street light poles. The city countersued in December 2021, alleging Crown Castle breached the requirements of a 2017 rights of use agreement with the municipality.