The second class action in a little more than two weeks from Comcast front-line workers seeking to hold Verizon accountable for the toxic lead cables they regularly came in contact with when climbing Comcast’s utility poles was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. Unlike the Aug. 23 complaint in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden by Greg Bostard, who left his Comcast job in 2019 (see 2308240005), the Pittsburgh plaintiff, Mark Tiger, is still actively employed as a utility worker for Duda Cable Construction, an independent Comcast contractor, said his complaint (docket 2:23-cv-01618). Seeger Weiss and Dwoskin Wasdin attorneys represent Bostard and Tiger in both class actions. Tiger, like Bostard, blasted Verizon for its “profit-driven decision to leave dangerous lead cables in place after they became outdated and obsolete,” in violation of state and federal law, said Tiger’s complaint. The decision “endangered -- and endangers -- utility workers whose work brings them in constant direct physical contact with these lead cables,” it said. Verizon and its predecessor companies “have known about this danger to utility workers for decades, but have made a decision to put profit above people, and to expose thousands of utility workers to dangerous levels of lead,” it said. Utility workers “are uniquely harmed by this misconduct,” alleged Tiger’s complaint. “Their jobs put them in constant contact with these cables and the environmental media which surrounds them,” it said. “They must manhandle these cables to do their jobs,” it said. Verizon’s failure “to properly assess and dispose of the cables and the lead that has leached off the cables into the surrounding environment has caused a public health crisis by unnecessarily exposing individuals in Pennsylvania and other states to toxic lead,” it said. Tiger and his putative class members, as with Bostard’s complaint, demand that Verizon pay for their medical monitoring to catch future lead-related illnesses in their early stages, said his complaint. Verizon provides a health monitoring program, including lead testing, to its own employees but doesn’t presently pay the cost of medical monitoring “for other individuals exposed to lead from their toxic lead-sheathed cables,” it said.

The petitioners who seek to enjoin Los Angeles County, local planning commissions and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works from approving an ordinance amending the county code for the fast-tracked proliferation of wireless infrastructure, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see 2303080040), haven’t exhausted their “administrative remedies,” as required by law, said the defendants’ answer Friday (docket 23STCP00750) in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The petitioners also are barred from maintaining this action by the applicable statutes of limitations and because “the balancing of hardships and considerations of public interest mandate against issuance of an injunction,” they said. The defendants are in full compliance with the CEQA and all relevant and applicable laws, said their answer. The petitioners haven’t experienced irreparable harm and won’t, “making injunctive relief improper,” it said. The county alleges that the wireless buildout won’t adversely affect the environment, and that the project won’t result in any irreparable harm, it said.

Verizon’s Aug. 11 complaint against Ocean City, New Jersey, for its “unreasonable and unsupportable” denial of an application to build and install a personal wireless services facility (see 2308140028) fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, said the city’s answer Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-04370) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The facility that Verizon wants to build consists of antennas and related equipment and cabling on the roof of and on the ground adjacent to an existing two-story commercial building at the property in town. Verizon’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and it’s not entitled to injunctive relief because it didn’t sustain irreparable harm, said the city. Verizon also failed to “exhaust administrative remedies,” it said.

The denial by Monmouth County, New Jersey, of Verizon’s application to install nine small wireless facilities (SWFs) in the public rights of way violated Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act because the denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record, alleged Verizon’s complaint Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-18091) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. The denial also constituted a material inhibition of service, in violation of the TCA’s sections 332 and 253, and violated the FCC’s 2018 shot clock order on SWFs, it said. Verizon needs to deploy the SWFs because its wireless network in that portion of the Jersey Shore has exceeded its capacity, said the complaint. “During the summer months this lack of capacity causes blocked calls,” it said. This service blocking “most recently occurred this past Labor Day weekend,” it said. Due to the county’s actions and omissions, “Verizon has been, and will continue to be, damaged and irreparably harmed,” absent the permanent injunctive relief it seeks, said the complaint.

Plaintiff American Tower seeks an entry of default against defendant TPT SpeedConnect for failing to answer or otherwise respond to its May 25 breach of contract complaint, said American Tower’s motion Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01336) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. SpeedConnect, provider of wireless internet services to small towns and rural communities in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, owes American Tower and 13 of its subsidiaries more than $2.89 million in unpaid rent and license fees under 60 license agreements that enabled SpeedConnect to install and operate telecommunications equipment on multiple cell towers owned and operated by American Tower, alleged the complaint (see 2305300003). American Tower seeks damages and an order authorizing it to remove and dispose of the SpeedConnect equipment remaining on the towers at SpeedConnect’s expense. American Tower properly effectuated service on SpeedConnect, and June 27 was its deadline for answering the complaint, said the motion.

Counsel for defendant Thomas Branham in a cell tower breach of contract lawsuit against STC Two and Global Signal filed a motion for leave to withdraw as Branham’s counsel of record, said a Friday filing (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Branham’s attorney, Charley Hess, seeks leave to withdraw as the defendant’s attorney because Branham terminated the representation. The oral termination occurred Friday during a meeting at the cell tower site in Columbus with Branham, Hess and Bruce Moore, one of plaintiffs’ attorneys, said the filing. Branham owns the property in Columbus 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, said the motion. 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. In late May (see 2305240031), the parties said they were close to reaching a settlement, and an order from U.S. District Judge James Graham for Southern Ohio in Columbus stayed all deadlines in the case. In his Friday filing, Hess said there's no trial data set for the case, and motions for a restraining order/ injunction and to dismiss Branham’s counterclaim are pending.

U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino for Northern New York in Albany granted the stipulation and order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-00107) that settles Verizon’s cell tower dispute with the town of Saugerties, New York. Saugerties was alleged to have violated the Telecommunications Act by refusing to act on Verizon’s cell tower application before the expiration of the statute’s shot clock (see 2301190046). In the settlement, Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers agreed to withdraw their complaint without prejudice, conditioned on the town’s approval for the construction of a 125-foot tower, plus a 4-foot lightning rod, to accommodate the antennas of local emergency services.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai for Oregon in Eugene postponed oral argument to Oct. 17 at 1 p.m. PDT on the cross motions for summary judgment filed June 1 by AT&T and Lake County, Oregon, said his text-only scheduling order Wednesday (docket 6:22-cv-01635). The postponement was at the request of counsel, said the order. AT&T wants the court to declare the county’s denial of its application for a wireless telecommunications facility “amounted to an effective prohibition” of services in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2307260023). The county contends AT&T is barred from “seeking redress” from the district court because it failed to appeal the county’s application denial to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the city of Pasadena, Texas, a deadline extension to Sept. 11 to file motions for panel rehearing and en banc reconsideration of the Aug. 4 decision affirming the district court’s ruling in appellee Crown Castle’s favor, said an order signed Wednesday by U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith. No further extensions will be granted, said the order. Pasadena asked for a 30-day extension to Sept. 18, but Crown Castle said it would endorse only a 14-day extension to Sept. 1 (see 2308160033). The 5th Circuit, like the district court, ruled Aug. 4 that Pasadena’s design manual unduly imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node network.

The appellant city of Pasadena, Texas, seeks a 30-day extension to Sept. 18 to file motions for panel rehearing and en banc reconsideration of the Aug. 4 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court’s ruling in appellee Crown Castle’s favor (see 2308070002), said Pasadena’s motion Tuesday (docket 22-20454). Crown Castle is unopposed to a 14-day extension but opposes the 30-day extension requested in Pasadena’s motion, it said. Good cause exists for granting an extension, which isn’t sought for purposes of delay, “but so that the motions may be properly prepared,” said Pasadena. The 5th Circuit, like the district court, said Pasadena’s design manual unduly imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node network.