U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing for New Mexico in Albuquerque scheduled a remote settlement conference for July 24 at 9 a.m. MDT in the cell tower lease dispute between plaintiffs T-Mobile and Crown Castle and defendant landlord Academy Medical Office, said her signed order Friday (docket 1:22-cv-00910). T-Mobile, the lessee, and Crown Castle, its subtenant, allege Academy is actively blocking Crown Castle from upgrading the tower on its property for Dish Network’s 5G network buildout (see 2211300001).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied Thursday’s letter motion (docket 2:22-cv-07807) from the village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York, to cancel a July 19 settlement conference with plaintiff AT&T on grounds that it would be futile for resolving the case. Tiscione’s text-only order gave no reasons for his denial, but said the in-person conference will now be held virtually. AT&T’s Dec. 22 complaint alleges the village’s denial of its cell tower application violated the Telecommunications Act by prohibiting the carrier from providing wireless telecommunications services (see 2212230054). AT&T further contends the village failed to act on its application before the statute's shot clock expired, and that the denial wasn’t based on substantial evidence in a written record, as the TCA requires. Oyster Bay Cove thinks settlement of the dispute “is not possible at this time,” and that the village will require a determination by the court of the “substantive merits” of AT&T’s claims, counsel for the village told the judge. Rather than waste the court's “valuable time,” the village thinks it would be “pointless to proceed with the scheduled conference," and asks that it be cancelled, and the parties directed to complete discovery,” said counsel. The court disagreed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Southern New York in Manhattan grudgingly granted the joint letter motion of Verizon and the town of Saugerties, New York, to set an Aug. 18 deadline for filing motions of summary judgment, said his text order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-00107). The parties’ June 23 motion said they needed the seven-week deadline extension to accommodate their “continued good faith efforts to resolve this matter" via settlement (see 2306260027). Though Stewart granted the extension, his order suggested his patience was running thin. “Representations have been made to the Court that the case is on the cusp of settlement,” but “similar representations” have been made at least five times in the past, it said. His order granted “one final extension,” and made clear that “no further extensions will be granted.” Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers allege Saugerties unlawfully refused to act on a cell tower application before the shot clock’s expiration, in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2301190046).

Subcontractor Kee Industries “materially 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, alleged APT in a complaint Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01239) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. APT agreed under an "oral understanding" to pay Kee for “approved services and personnel costs,” but APT never agreed to pay a “markup” of any costs or for “generic administrative services or expenses,” it said. Kee nevertheless kept invoicing APT for those charges despite failing to provide “management support” or “qualified field personnel in a timely manner,” it said. At one site, Kee workers “arrived too late to perform any work at that location,” it said. After APT reassigned Kee to a second work site, Kee’s personnel “were tardy yet again,” it said. When presented with the opportunity to assist APT with the work, Kee’s crew “stood idly by watching APT’s staff work,” it said. By relying on Kee’s contentions it could “adequately assist” APT in the growth of its business, APT lost profits and “customer goodwill” through Kee’s lackluster conduct, alleges the complaint. APT lost its contract with Samsung, “which would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. APT also “missed out on the additional job prospects” that Dish had to offer in its 5G network buildout, “which also would have resulted in significant profit,” it said. 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, it said. 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.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hold in abeyance until Sept. 13 the consolidated appeals between Verizon and the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, to enable the combined cases (dockets 22-16153 and 22-16489) to enter a second round of mediation, said an order Friday. Verizon alleges the district court wrongly dismissed its complaint against the city on grounds that the municipality’s denial of its cell tower application was improper under the Telecommunications Act (see 2306020010). The city’s appeal seeks to reverse the U.S. District Court for Northern California’s denial of its motion to recover nearly $78,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Verizon, on behalf of itself and the town of Saugerties, New York, seeks a seven-week extension to Aug. 18 of the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment “to accommodate the parties’ continued good faith efforts to resolve this matter" via settlement, counsel Scott Olson of Young/Sommer wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Northern New York in Albany in a letter Friday (docket 1:22-cv-00107). Olson thinks the parties “have agreed to the general terms and conditions of a settlement,” and he expects soon to “memorialize” those terms and conditions in a draft stipulation and order, he said. Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers allege Saugerties unlawfully refused to act on a cell tower application before the shot clock’s expiration, in violation of the Telecommunications Act (see 2301190046).

The federal government and the state of Pennsylvania “have an interest in the repairs and structure” of the Inclined Plane funicular that connects the city of Johnstown to the borough of Westmont, said a brief Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh in which Cambria County opposes Verizon’s June 6 motion to dismiss the county’s complaint (see 2306070030). The county asserts Verizon breached its easement agreement by failing to maintain the telephone equipment along the funicular. The federal government and the state require “any person, company or utility to pay fair market rental for their use of federally funded facilities, and Verizon has refused this obligation under federal law,” said the county. The failure to collect rent or enter into a federally approved lease or maintenance agreement “could negatively impact federal monies used to support the Incline Plane,” it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied without prejudice the Oct. 17 and Nov. 2 motions of 31 residents of Muttontown, New York, to intervene in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village, said Dunst’s text-only order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The motions were held in abeyance as briefing continued on Muttontown’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint. The motion to dismiss is now “fully submitted” and pending with U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for a ruling, said Dunst’s order. “As the dismissal motion may end or limit the current case, this ruling may impact the pending intervention motion,” it said. It’s therefore “appropriate for the court to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the intervention motions without prejudice” as a reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court's fair administration of justice, it said. As further grounds for the denial, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “recently upheld the dismissal of intervention motions in a factually similar case,” said Dunst’s order. The 2nd Circuit said the Eastern District of New York didn’t abuse its discretion when it denied the motion of eight residents of Kings Point, New York, to intervene in Extenet’s infrastructure lawsuit against the village (see 2306160025). “This recent decision may require the proposed intervenors to revise their current motions” in the Muttontown case said Dunst’s order. It’s therefore “most efficient for the current motions to be dismissed without prejudice,” it said. That the current intervention motions and supporting papers exceed 700 pages is another factor that warrants denial, it said. The court finds that these “bloated filings violate the letter and spirit” of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), it said. “Subject to the decision by Judge Seybert on the pending dismissal motion, the proposed intervenors may file a pre-motion letter request” consistent with Dunst’s order, it said. AT&T contends the village unlawfully denied its cell tower application, and the residents sought to intervene on the grounds they didn’t believe the village best represented their property interests (see 2211030048).

The U.S. District Court for Eastern New York didn’t abuse its discretion when it denied the motion of eight residents of Kings Point, New York, to intervene in Extenet’s infrastructure lawsuit against the village, said the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s summary order Friday (22-1265). Extenet alleged Kings Point unlawfully denied its application for a special exception permit for 31 small-cell installations to improve wireless service in the village. The residents argue intervention was necessary to protect their individual properties from the purported aesthetic and economic impacts of the proposed small-cell installations. The district court denied the residents’ motion for permissive intervention and intervention as of right, and the 2nd Circuit said it was right to do so. Contrary to the residents’ contention, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion in concluding that the village could “adequately represent” the residents’ interests in this action, said the summary order. As such, the 2nd Circuit can’t conclude the district court erred in denying the residents’ motion to intervene under either Rule 24(a) or Rule 24(b), it said. The district court’s determination on the adequacy of the village’s representation is “alone sufficient to justify the denial” of the residents’ motion to intervene, it said. The 2nd Circuit need not reach the residents’ other claims of error, it said. Those claims include their argument that the district court erred in concluding that their aesthetic interests weren’t “legally protectable interests for the purposes of their motion to intervene under Rule 24(a),” it said. The residents also raise various arguments about how the district court “abused its discretion in concluding that their interests would be adequately protected” by the village, it said: “None is persuasive.” In the same June 2022 order denying the residents' motion to intervene, the district court granted Extenet's motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the village to approve its special exception permit for the small-cells installations.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kato Crews for Colorado in Denver set an Aug. 14 telephone scheduling conference for 10:30 a.m. MDT in American Tower’s breach of contract lawsuit against SpeedConnect, said the judge’s text-only order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01336). American Tower alleges SpeedConnect, provider of wireless internet services to small towns and rural communities in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Montana and South Dakota, owes it and 13 of its subsidiaries more than $2.89 million in unpaid rent and license fees (see 2305300003). The allegedly unpaid fees are from 60 license agreements that enabled SpeedConnect to install and operate telecommunications equipment on multiple cell towers owned and operated by American Tower.