Utilities services company Danella seeks a jury trial on the negligence allegations brought by Verizon, its attorney wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks for Northern New York in Syracuse in a letter motion Monday (docket 5:24-cv-00478). Verizon’s counsel consents to the motion, it said. Verizon alleges that Danella was performing work for National Grid replacing utility poles in Syracuse in May 2021 when it removed and transferred Verizon’s wireless facilities from an old pole to a new one without the carrier’s authorization, and did so improperly (see 2404050055). Verizon contends it sustained damages of nearly $110,000 for the costs of repairing and replacing its facilities, which it now seeks to recover from Danella. But the defendant contends that the damages that Verizon allegedly suffered were caused in whole or in part by the plaintiff’s own “culpable conduct.”

Walla Walla, Washington, seeks to compel "complete" AT&T responses to the city’s Jan. 30 discovery requests and to extend the discovery cutoff, said the city’s motion Monday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. AT&T’s Dec. 1 complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief challenging Walla Walla’s denial of its application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a 65-foot cell tower (see 2312040002). AT&T and the city both have pending summary judgment motions, which are scheduled for July 16 oral argument, said the city’s motion to compel. The city submits that its summary judgment motion is “meritorious,” it said. It also acknowledges that its need for the discovery sought by this motion could become moot if summary judgment is granted, it said. “But it would be imprudent to wait until after the July 16 hearing to file this motion to compel,” because the discovery cutoff in this case is currently Aug. 2, it said. Walla Walla asks the court to extend the discovery cutoff until 60 days after the city is provided with full AT&T responses to its discovery requests, it said.

After granting an Oyster Bay Cove, New York, resident’s request for a premotion conference on his anticipated motion to intervene to defend the village’s denial of AT&T's tower application (see 2406040002), U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for Eastern New York in Central Islip set July 12 as the deadline for David Savetz to serve that motion, said the judge’s civil minute entry Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-07807). AT&T’s opposition is due Aug. 2, and Aug. 16 is Savetz’s deadline to serve his reply and file his fully briefed motion, it said. Savetz contends that his home would be “adversely affected” by AT&T’s construction of its proposed 85-foot tower “on the property immediately adjacent to his.” AT&T intends to oppose as “futile” any motion by Savetz to intervene (see 2405310002).

T-Mobile seeks the reversal of the “unreasonable and unsupportable denial” by Wanaque, New Jersey, and its planning board of the carrier’s applications for preliminary and final site plan approval for the installation of a 120-foot monopole cell tower, said its Telecommunications Act complaint Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-07001). The tower is necessary to remedy a significant gap in reliable wireless service and is the least intrusive means to do so, said the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. The denial of the applications “materially inhibits” the provision of personal wireless and telecommunications services, the complaint said. The borough and the planning board unreasonably denied the applications without substantial evidence contained in the administrative record, it said. They also failed to support their denial with a written decision within a reasonable period of time, it said. They illegally based their decisions on the environmental effects of RF emissions, which warrants injunctive relief mandating that the borough and its planning board issue all required approvals for the construction of the tower, it said. T-Mobile seeks a declaratory judgment that the denial of the applications is preempted by federal law and by FCC regulations and orders, and is unlawful under New Jersey state law, it said.

Wheeling, West Virginia, and its planning commission unlawfully denied AT&T’s application to build an 85-foot cell tower to fill a significant wireless coverage and capacity gap in a portion of the city that includes Wheeling University, alleged AT&T’s Telecommunications Act complaint Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00106) in U.S. District Court for Northern West Virginia in Wheeling. AT&T, through its agent, GPD Group, submitted an application seeking approval of a special use permit that would allow construction of the tower, said the complaint. But the city denied the application “based on vague and unsupported allegations” that the proposed facility goes against the character of the community, it said. AT&T’s application “was complete and complied with all applicable requirements” established by the city, said the complaint. Both the city’s third-party expert and its zoning staff recommended approval of the carrier’s application, it said. Wheeling’s denial of the application wasn’t supported “by substantial evidence contained in a written record and effectively prohibits the provision of personal wireless services in the vicinity of the proposed facility,” said the complaint. The denial violates Section 332(c)(7) of the TCA, it said. AT&T is entitled to an order directing the city to grant the carrier’s application “and issue all necessary permits that will allow for the development of the proposed facility,” it said.

Tilson Technology Management, a telecommunications services firm, wrongfully failed to pay the invoices of Eustis Cable Enterprises, a company that’s in the business of installing fiber optic cable for internet and cable television, alleged Eustis’ breach of contract complaint Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-00620) in U.S. District Court for Vermont. Tilson contracts with cable and internet companies to design and install fiber optic cable networks, sometimes subcontracting the installation work to other companies, like Eustis, said the complaint. In 2022, Tilson solicited Eustis to perform installation work in Vermont, Connecticut and New York, it said. After some negotiations between Tilson and Eustis, the parties agreed that Eustis would perform the work of installing fiber optic cable for Tilson as a subcontractor for Tilson’s customers, including Verizon, it said. The work that Eustis performed “complied with the contractual standards for installation established by the parties,” said the complaint. Tilson’s customer, Verizon, “had no complaints,” and Tilson was “fully satisfied with the work” that Eustis performed, it said. The work was billed “consistent with the established pricing and procedures,” it said. But Tilson failed to pay Eustis the $1.46 million in fees that Eustis invoiced, the complaint said. Tilson “has no defense to this claim for nonpayment,” it said: “It simply chose not to pay.” The defendant’s failure to pay the submitted invoices “constitutes a breach of the contract for work” between Tilson and Eustis, said the complaint. That breach has caused “direct financial harm” to Eustis, and Tilson’s failure to pay is a violation of Vermont’s Prompt Pay Act, it said.

U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip referred Oyster Bay Cove, New York, resident David Savetz’s request for a pre-motion conference on his anticipated motion to intervene to defend the village’s denial of AT&T's tower application (see 2405240010) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for adjudication, said Azrack’s text-only order Monday (docket 2:22-cv-07807). If Tiscione schedules briefing, the resulting motion is referred to him for a report and recommendation, said the order. Briefing on AT&T’s anticipated summary judgment motion against Oyster Bay Cove is stayed pending adjudication of Savetz's anticipated motion to intervene, it said. If all parties consent, Tiscione may conduct all proceedings in this action, including dispositive motion practice, trial and entry of a final judgment, it said. Savetz contends that his home would be “adversely affected” by AT&T’s construction of its proposed 85-foot tower “on the property immediately adjacent to his.” AT&T intends to oppose as “futile” any motion by Savetz to intervene (see 2405310002).

AT&T intends to oppose as “futile” any motion by Oyster Bay Cove, New York, resident David Savetz to intervene to defend the village’s denial of the carrier's tower application (see 2405240010), AT&T’s counsel wrote U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-07807). Savetz contends that his home would be “adversely affected” by AT&T construction of the 85-foot tower on the property “immediately adjacent” to his. But he has no “property interest” in the tower site, “or any right to control its development,” Andrew Joseph of Faegre Drinker, told the judge. New York federal courts have long held that objecting neighbors lack a “sufficient interest to intervene” in a Telecommunications Act challenge to a tower application denial, said Joseph. Savetz’s concern that the proposed tower might devalue his property doesn’t give him an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, the lawyer said. “The case law is clear that intervention as of right is limited to persons who have a property interest in the site on which a proposed facility would be located, or in other property whose legal status would be changed by the challenged decision,” he said. AT&T believes that the existing defendants “adequately protect” Savetz’s “limited interests,” Joseph told the judge. “This is a second independent ground to deny intervention,” he said. Savetz isn’t invoking his own rights but merely seeks to defend the village’s denial of the carrier’s application, he said. In light of this “confessed identity of interests,” Savetz can’t satisfy Rule 24’s requirement “that an existing party not adequately represent his interest,” the lawyer said. Savetz’s concern that Oyster Bay Cove might settle “is not only baseless,” but also irrelevant, said Joseph. “Absent collusion or the like,” a municipality has the power to settle if it determines that settlement would best serve the public interest, he said. Savetz “incredibly” argues that he should be allowed to intervene so he can exercise the village’s litigation authority “for his own ends,” because the village itself wouldn’t be permitted to place the interests of one homeowner over the residents of the entire village, he said. “This is exactly why individual residents are not permitted to intervene in this context,” he said. While Savetz also seeks permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), the cases are clear that permissive intervention is inappropriate, given that the village “adequately represents his legitimate interests,” Joseph said. Savetz also never offers how his participation will contribute to the full development of the underlying factual issues in the dispute, he said. Savetz’s delay in not seeking to intervene in AT&T’s December 2022 complaint against the village until May 2024 is “also unexplained,” he said. It’s also impossible to “reconcile” Savetz’s desire to develop the facts “with his claim that intervention would not cause delay or prejudice to parties that have already completed discovery and commenced summary judgment briefing,” said Joseph. As several courts have noted, avoiding undue delay is particularly important in TCA cases, “which are required to be resolved on an expedited basis,” he said. AT&T asks that Savetz not be permitted to file a motion to intervene, “as it would be futile and itself a source of delay,” he said.

There’s “no dispute” that AT&T has a “significant service coverage gap” in Walla Walla, Washington, said AT&T’s reply Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. AT&T's April 25 motion seeks summary judgment for the city’s denial of its application for a conditional use permit to build a 65-foot cell tower (see 2404260004). The only issues for the court to decide about AT&T’s effective prohibition claim under the Telecommunications Act are whether the carrier submitted a complete tower application, and whether the city met its burden to identify an available, feasible and less intrusive alternative to the proposed tower, said the reply. The defendant didn’t offer any available alternatives during the administrative process, “as contemplated by federal case law,” said AT&T. Despite this, the city has pointed to four “purported alternatives” to the tower through its briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, it said. But none of those “alleged” alternatives is “both available and feasible,” it said. Because there’s no dispute about AT&T’s coverage gap, and because the city can’t identify an available and feasible alternative to the tower, the city has effectively prohibited the plaintiff from providing wireless services in violation of the TCA, it said. The “appropriate remedy” is for the court to order the city to grant AT&T’s requested permit, it said.

Plaintiffs STC Two and Global Signal Acquisitions’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $134,886.50 represented “reasonably expended” hours billed “especially in light of Defendant’s actions in unnecessarily prolonging every step of the litigation,” said their reply memorandum Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The plaintiffs were responding to the defendant’s opposition to their motion for “excessive hours” billed, said the reply. The plaintiffs' Feb. 24, 2023, fraud complaint (see 2302280015) alleged Thomas Branham “willfully breached” a lease with STC for a 2,500-square-foot section of his property that employees of Global Signal, STC’s attorney-in-fact for the cellsite, had been accessing for over 20 years when he installed and refused to remove a padlock on the gate at the entrance to the site. The court granted summary judgment to STC Two and Global Signal in an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the lease and their motion for a permanent injunction against Branham from blocking or otherwise interfering with plaintiffs’ access to the tower. In his May 23 opposition to the motion for attorneys' fees (see 2405240038), Branham conceded that plaintiffs’ hourly rates of $399.57, $399.05 and $304.77 were reasonable but said the 370 hours billed were “excessive.” In reply, the plaintiffs said the hours expended on the case were “reasonable," and that all were required "to move the case forward and prove Plaintiffs’ claims, to comply with the Court’s directives, to attend various conferences, ‘some of which Defendant simply refused to attend,’” and in direct response to Branham’s “ever-changing settlement demands,” his “bad faith actions” -- such as filing a counterclaim -- and “misguided litigation tactics, including court-mandated conferences." Branham’s “unreasonable and never-ending demands, which had absolutely no basis whatsoever under the Lease or the law, caused the continued litigation of a case Plaintiffs never wanted to file in the first place,” the reply said. The plaintiffs request that the court award attorneys’ fees of $134,866.50 and an award of costs of $2,214.50, it said. The sum doesn’t include the time and money spent “to combat the latest round of baseless arguments” advanced by Branham, which the plaintiffs are willing to forego, it said.