U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis granted AT&T’s second motion for summary judgment in its bid to overcome the denials of Monroe County, Illinois, for construction of a 155-foot monopole tower on a leased, fenced-in portion of land that also contains an independently run self-storage facility, said Rosenstengel’s signed order Friday (docket 3:20-cv-01327). AT&T’s summary judgment motion alleged the Monroe County board of commissioners failed to comply with the timing requirements under the Illinois Counties Code and the Monroe County Code of Ordinances, and the judge agreed, said her order. “The record is clear” that the county failed to comply with the 75-day mandate in both the Illinois Counties Code and its own zoning ordinance, it said. As for what that means for the resolution of the dispute, AT&T reasoned that if a county acts on an application outside the 75-day window, “it acts outside its conferred power,” said the order. AT&T’s argument is that any decision rendered outside of that power is void, and the court “is persuaded by this logic and applies the same,” it said. The county acted outside of its authority after the 75-day window lapsed, it said. Neither the county nor AT&T “has the ability to waive an express provision limiting the power conferred by statute and the legislature,” it said. Her order set an Oct. 13 deadline for the filing of a joint status report "indicating any other issues necessary" for the court to resolve.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton set a Nov. 6 briefing deadline on the motion of seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents to intervene in Verizon’s complaint to force Monmouth County’s approval of its application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights-of-way, said the judge’s text-only order Friday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). The would-be intervenors, banding together as a grass-roots organization they call Belmar Against 5G Towers, are individuals who live and own property in the immediate vicinity of the SWFs, and will be “directly and adversely affected” if the SWFs are built and go into operation, said their motion to intervene Wednesday (see 2309280027).

Mastec North America violated Florida law in October 2019 when it excavated with mechanical equipment along a one-block stretch of Collins Avenue in Miami Beach, causing $47,341 in damages to Crown Castle’s underground telecom cable, alleged Crown Castle’s Sept. 25 complaint (docket 2023-130660-CC-23) in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County. The complaint alleges Mastec negligently failed to excavate “in a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” and it failed to take “adequate measures” to safeguard Crown Castle’s cable against damage.

Seven residents of Belmar, New Jersey, banding together as a grass-roots organization they call Belmar Against 5G Towers, seek to intervene in Verizon’s complaint to force Monmouth County’s approval of its application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights of way (see 2309080048), said their memorandum Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in support of their motion to intervene. They seek oral argument if opposition is filed to their motion. Verizon seeks an order requiring the county to approve the SWFs application and to execute a landowner consent form that Verizon claims is a necessary prerequisite for a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection coastal area facility review permit. Verizon alleges the county’s denial of its SWFs application was legally erroneous or invalid, and its failure to execute the consent form “is also legally erroneous or invalid,” said the residents’ memorandum. The residents “disagree on both counts,” and move for party status as defendant-intervenors, it said. The intervenors are individuals “who live and own property in the immediate vicinity” of the SWFs, and will be “directly and adversely affected” if the SWFs are built and go into operation, said their memorandum. The court “should allow them to intervene in the instant matter as a matter of right,” it said. The case will “impair or impede” their ability “to protect their interests,” and they aren’t “adequately represented” by the county, it said. Even if the residents aren’t permitted to intervene “as a matter of right,” they have “a significant interest in the outcome of the instant litigation,” said the memorandum. “They also have unique and additional claims that are not likely to be raised” by the county, it said.

Plaintiff Olcan III Properties and defendant Global Tower seek to stay their litigation for 45 days and to suspend all deadlines in the case “while the parties pursue a potential settlement,” said their joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore. The parties agree to file a joint status report by Nov. 13 either informing the court they reached a resolution or setting forth an agreed schedule consistent with the court’s original scheduling order, said the motion. Their joint motion “is not made for the purpose of improper delay or for any other inappropriate purpose, but is made in good faith in an attempt to resolve this matter,” it said. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett granted the motion, said his signed order late Wednesday. Olcan’s second amended complaint alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits” (see 2211140050). Global Tower counters by alleging Olcan neglected its property for years, failing to do routine upkeep and care required to maintain the building (see 2302010046).

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Sept. 11 petition of Pasadena, Texas, for a rehearing or rehearing en banc of the court’s Aug. 4 decision that the city’s design manual unduly imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node network (see 2309120008), said the 5th Circuit’s order Monday (docket 22-20454). Because no member of the panel or judge in regular active service asked that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, Pasaden’s petition for rehearing en banc is denied, said the order.

Defendant Central Civil Construction, while excavating with mechanized equipment at a Miami intersection in September 2019, caused nearly $27,000 in damages to Crown Castle’s underground cable, resulting in the loss of the use of that cable, alleged Crown Castle’s negligence complaint Tuesday (docket 2023-123017-CC-24) in 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The complaint alleges Central Civil failed to provide, as required by state law, the Florida “one-call notification system” timely notice of the location and date of its planned work. The defendant also failed to excavate “in a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” it said.

Plaintiffs STC Two and Global Signal accepted defendant Thomas Branham’s dismissal with prejudice of his counterclaims in a cell tower trespass dispute, said the parties’ Thursday stipulation (see [docket 2:23-cv-00764]) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The stipulation renders plaintiffs’ May motion to dismiss the counterclaims and Branham’s September motion for leave to withdraw the counterclaim (see 2309130019) moot. Branham’s counterclaim that the path of STC Two’s access to a cell tower from the entrance gate requires a trespass on his property. Branham owns the property where the cellsite has been operating for decades under a 1998 Sprint PCS site agreement that was amended in 2013. Under the lease, STC Two and Global Signal are authorized to maintain, operate and sublease the cell tower and related equipment at the site. Plaintiffs filed their complaint after Branham “repeatedly and brazenly obstructed and/or prevented altogether” STC Two’s access to the cellsite in “blatant violation” of the lease.

U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for Maryland in Baltimore denied defendant Global Tower’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Olcan III Properties’ second amended breach of contract complaint (see 2306080034), said the judge’s signed memorandum opinion Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456). Olcan’s amended complaint alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits” (see 2211140050). Olcan alleges $1 million in damages for repairs, loss of rents and excess revenue, and increased cost of maintenance and security. Global Tower’s motion to dismiss said Olcan “neglected its property for years, failing to conduct the routine upkeep and care required to maintain the building” (see 2302010046). Olcan’s allegations of contractual obligation, breach and damages “sufficiently state a claim for breach of contract,” said the judge’s memorandum order. Olcan accordingly “may proceed on its breach of contract claim” in this court, it said.

The property owner in a cell tower access dispute requested leave to withdraw his counterclaim against STC Two and Global Signal, said his Tuesday motion (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Defendant Thomas Branham asserted in a counterclaim that the path of STC Two’s access to a cell tower from the entrance gate requires a trespass on Branham’s property. STC Two has a pending motion to dismiss the counterclaim; Branham’s response is due Friday. “After informal discovery and sharing of information, it has become evident to defendant that the position set forth in his Counterclaim is incorrect and not supported by the facts of permitted access,” said attorney Charley Hess, who filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Branham’s counsel of record last month (see Ref:2308280028]) after Branham terminated the representation during a meeting at the cell tower site with plaintiffs’ attorneys in Columbus. U.S. District Judge James Graham denied the motion to withdraw after Branham said in a Sept. 1 teleconference he would like Hess’ continued representation. Branham owns the property where a cellsite has been operating for decades under a 1998 Sprint PCS site agreement that was amended in 2013. Under the lease, STC Two and Global Signal are authorized to maintain, operate and sublease the cell tower and related equipment at the site, said their May memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss Branham’s counterclaims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint after Branham “repeatedly and brazenly obstructed and/or prevented altogether” STC Two’s access to the cellsite in “blatant violation” of the lease. In response to the lawsuit, Branham filed his answer and counterclaims, admitting he obstructed STC Two's access to the cellsite. Branham “curiously asserted claims” against STC Two for trespass, preliminary and injunctive relief and breach of contract, and he installed a padlock on the gate of the metal fenced enclosure leading to the cellsite, said plaintiffs’ motion. Withdrawing the counterclaim will simplify the issues, “furthering the opportunity of the parties to reach resolution,” said Branham’s Tuesday motion.