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.

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.

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.

Google Fiber and John Does 1-10 drilled through Rocky Mountain Power’s utility lines at a site in Salt Lake City County and damaged them, Rocky Mountain said in an Oct. 3 complaint filed Monday (docket 230907610) in Utah District Court in Salt Lake City. Google Fiber, through its agents, was using power-driven equipment in November to perform excavating and drilling at a site in South Jordan within 24 inches of Rocky Mountain Power’s “properly marked” streetlight utility lines, the complaint alleged. Defendants were negligent for failing to (1) exercise due care in their work, (2) properly notify the proper parties to correctly locate and mark the utility lines after they were hit, (3) observe markings for the underground utility lines in the area, 4) use power-driven excavating equipment within 24 inches of markings for the lines and for (5) striking and damaging the lines, among other claims. Defendants have refused to pay for the damage, which cost plaintiff $2,503.20 in material, labor and transportation. Plaintiff seeks damages plus prejudgment interest of 6.7%.

Subcontractor Kee Industries denies it breached its contractual relationship with Crown Castle contractor American Power Tower (APT) by failing to provide proper services and personnel for Dish Network and Samsung wireless infrastructure projects in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia (see 2306260001), said Kee’s answer Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01239) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. Due to Kee’s “intentional and tortious interference” with APT’s contractual relationships with Crown Castle, APT suffered economic damages and incurred unnecessary legal expenses, alleged APT’s June 23 complaint. APT has suffered, and will continue to incur in the future, economic damages “as a direct and proximate result” of Kee’s tort, it said. But Kee alleges APT’s own acts or omissions “amount to wrongful negligent or intentional acts or omissions,” said its answer. Kee also alleges any damages sustained by APT were caused by “superseding” or “intervening” acts or omissions of persons or entititles other than Kee over whose conduct Kee “has no control,” it said.

T-Mobile can’t prevail in its claims that Chestnut Ridge, New York, violated Section 704 of the Communications Act when it denied T-Mobile’s applications to build a 105-foot monopole cell tower (see 2307110008) because it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, said the village’s answer Monday (docket 7:23-cv-05852) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. T-Mobile also can’t prevail because the village’s denials “were supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record,” as federal law requires, it said. T-Mobile also can’t prevail because its proposed cell tower isn’t “the least intrusive means to remedy any purported gap in coverage or insufficient capacity,” it said.

Each cause of action in plaintiff Debra Brown’s complaint, in which she seeks to nullify the wireless communications easement on her residential property in Goshen, Indiana, and to exclude Frontier and six other defendants from the parcel of real estate that’s “burdened” by the easement (see 2309150006), is barred because Frontier “has a prescriptive easement in the property in dispute,” said Frontier’s answer Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00842) in U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana in South Bend. Brown’s complaint asserts she’s entitled to possession of the real estate, “free and clear of any actual possession or use” by any of the defendants, except for a 25-foot-wide parcel of land that Frontier may have acquired under deeds of easement granted by Brown’s mother, Charlotte Lantz. The facilities include above-ground and underground fiber cables, plus one or more phone lines, said Brown’s complaint. Frontier contends it’s not liable for damages to Brown and shouldn’t be enjoined to remove certain underground fiber cables from the property in dispute, said Frontier’s cross-claim against Verizon, also filed Monday. Frontier installed underground fiber cables on the property in dispute “in reliance of Verizon’s representation that it possessed an easement in the property in dispute,” said the cross-claim. To the extent the court finds Verizon doesn’t own an easement in the property in dispute, Frontier “is entitled to complete indemnity from Verizon for any damages, liabilities, obligations, or costs incurred by Frontier pursuant to Frontier’s reliance on Verizon’s alleged misrepresentations,” said the cross-claim. Verizon didn’t comment Tuesday, and hasn’t answered Brown’s complaint.