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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.