Court Denies Residents’ Motion to Intervene in AT&T’s Tower Fight vs. Muttontown

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied without prejudice the Oct. 17 and Nov. 2 motions of 31 residents of Muttontown, New York, to intervene in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village, said Dunst’s text-only order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The motions were held in abeyance as briefing continued on Muttontown’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint. The motion to dismiss is now “fully submitted” and pending with U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for a ruling, said Dunst’s order. “As the dismissal motion may end or limit the current case, this ruling may impact the pending intervention motion,” it said. It’s therefore “appropriate for the court to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the intervention motions without prejudice” as a reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court's fair administration of justice, it said. As further grounds for the denial, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “recently upheld the dismissal of intervention motions in a factually similar case,” said Dunst’s order. The 2nd Circuit said the Eastern District of New York didn’t abuse its discretion when it denied the motion of eight residents of Kings Point, New York, to intervene in Extenet’s infrastructure lawsuit against the village (see 2306160025). “This recent decision may require the proposed intervenors to revise their current motions” in the Muttontown case said Dunst’s order. It’s therefore “most efficient for the current motions to be dismissed without prejudice,” it said. That the current intervention motions and supporting papers exceed 700 pages is another factor that warrants denial, it said. The court finds that these “bloated filings violate the letter and spirit” of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), it said. “Subject to the decision by Judge Seybert on the pending dismissal motion, the proposed intervenors may file a pre-motion letter request” consistent with Dunst’s order, it said. AT&T contends the village unlawfully denied its cell tower application, and the residents sought to intervene on the grounds they didn’t believe the village best represented their property interests (see 2211030048).