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 a breach of contract complaint Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01336) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. SpeedConnect “retained all of the benefits conferred” by the license agreements without compensating American Tower “for the value of those benefits,” it said. The suit seeks the recovery of the unpaid fees, plus 18% interest per annum and attorneys’ costs.

A Verizon employee pierced a water line at a home in Middletown, Delaware, while installing service at a customer’s home, alleges a May 17 negligence complaint (docket N23C-05-166) in Delaware Superior Court in New Castle. The June 2021 installation was performed in a “negligent and careless manner,” said the complaint brought by insurer United Services Automobile Association and homeowner Myan Colatat. The lawsuit alleges Verizon failed to properly train and vet its employees for installation work, track their work “to know who was present and performing the work” and perform the installation without causing damage. Plaintiffs seek damages of $19,184 that were paid by the insurer.

Maryland property owner Olcan III’s revised claims in a dispute over a rooftop cell tower against American Tower continue to lack important details on the breach of contract claims, American Tower said in a Wednesday filing in response to an amended complaint. "Reading the allegations in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Global Tower’s use of the easement has damaged Plaintiff’s Property, as previously alleged in the Amended Complaint. Such skeletal and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract," said American Tower. Because the complaint is still lacking, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for Maryland in Baltimore should dismiss the complaint with prejudice, it said. Bennett previously dismissed the breach of contract claim but said Olcan could update the complaint (see 2304250026). Olcan’s first amended complaint alleged Global Tower’s careless use of an easement to access its cell tower on the rooftop of a building in Baltimore that Olcan owns caused Olcan to incur repair costs and to lose rent and profits (see 2211140050).

The parties in a Columbus, Ohio, cellsite dispute are close to reaching a settlement, said an order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) Tuesday from U.S. District Judge James Graham for Southern Ohio in Columbus staying all deadlines in the case. The stay includes defendant Thomas Branham’s deadline to respond to plaintiffs STC Two and Global Signal’s pending motion to dismiss (see 2305180032). Branham, who owns the property where STC Two has a cell tower, installed a padlock at the entrance of the tower site, in breach of his lease to STC Two, and refused to remove it. Branham continued to obstruct the Global Signal company’s access to the cellsite “in blatant violation” of the lease, which entitles its employees to access “24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” the complaint said. Branham said STC Two's tower, enclosed by metal fencing, wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, so STC Two employees and customers had to cut across Branham’s land to gain access.

U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for Eastern New York in Central Islip should “disregard” AT&T’s May 12 supplemental authority letter asserting a decision in its case in Western District of Missouri supports AT&T’s rationale for denying the motion of the village of Muttontown, New York, to dismiss AT&T’s cell tower complaint (see 2305150037), the village wrote the judge in a letter Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The ruling in Western Missouri isn’t “pertinent to the subject case” because the decision is from a district court located in a different circuit, and is predicated upon 8th Circuit precedent, not the “controlling” 2nd Circuit precedent, said Muttontown. The subject matter in AT&T’s complaint against Muttontown also is fully briefed and AT&T failed to seek approval to file the letter under Seybert’s individual rules and practices, said the village. The facts of AT&T’s case in Western Missouri also “are clearly distinguishable from those at bar, which are not in dispute and would be applied to the case law standards” set by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2nd Circuit, it said. AT&T alleges in both lawsuits the municipalities’ denials of AT&T applications to build new cell towers failed to comply with the statute’s requirements that the denials be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. AT&T also alleges in both complaints the denials are an unlawful prohibition of the statute’s provisions for personal wireless services.

Verizon removed to U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven a breach of contract complaint filed April 18 in Connecticut Superior Court by Cellular Solutions, a real estate firm that provides services to landlords that have rooftop leases with wireless telecommunications carriers, including Verizon. The Friday complaint alleges Verizon owes landlord Maxwell Realty more than $64,000 in municipal taxes for the space it’s leasing for wireless telecom equipment on a property in Bridgeport. Verizon’s lease obligated the carrier to reimburse Maxwell for the unpaid taxes within 15 days of being invoiced, yet Verizon has refused to pay since 2020, said the complaint. Cellular Solutions “has full assignment from Maxwell Realty” of all claims arising from the Verizon lease, including its refusal “to pay its tax reimbursement obligations,” it said. Verizon didn’t comment Monday.

The U.S. District Court for Western Missouri “lacks authority and jurisdiction” to grant AT&T’s request for an order approving its revised application for a conditional use permit to build a wireless communications facility in St. Joseph, said the city’s answer Tuesday (docket 5:21-cv-06114) to AT&T’s complaint. AT&T sued the city, alleging its denial of the revised application wasn’t supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, in violation of the Telecommunications Act. The district court further lacks jurisdiction to grant AT&T’s requested relief “because federal courts have no general power to compel action by state or municipal officials,” said the city’s answer. “Mandamus relief directing city officials to take certain actions is only available for ministerial actions, not discretionary ones like the issuance of a conditional use permit,” it said. The court “should treat this case as moot and decline to exercise jurisdiction,” said the city. AT&T asks the court to order St. Joseph to approve its revised application, but AT&T “has since filed a new application for a different tower at the same location,” it said. AT&T filed a separate lawsuit asking the court to order the city to approve the new application in the same location, but the court can’t “grant relief in both cases,” it said. AT&T also lacks standing “and has failed to allege an injury that is not hypothetical or self-inflicted,” said the city. AT&T “is currently providing wireless services for the same area,” and any injury AT&T might suffer is a consequence of its “own choices regarding available siting options,” not any actions taken by the city, it said. U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough, in an order last Friday, denied St. Joseph’s motions to dismiss AT&T’s complaint (see 2305150037).

Friday’s order from U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough for Western Missouri denying the city of St. Joseph’s motions to dismiss AT&T’s complaint applies the “same reasoning” as arguments AT&T raised in urging U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for Eastern New York in Central Islip to deny the motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint against the village of Muttontown, New York, AT&T wrote Seybert in a letter with supplemental authority Friday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). Bough denied the city’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s substantial evidence and prohibition of services claims under the Telecommunications Act, saying the city’s arguments challenging the factual adequacy of the substantial evidence claim weren't well-suited to a motion to dismiss, AT&T told Seybert. Bough “similarly dismissed the challenge to the prohibition of services claim,” it said. AT&T alleges in both lawsuits the municipalities’ denials of AT&T applications to build new cell towers failed to comply with the statute’s requirements that the denials be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. AT&T also alleges in both complaints the denials are an unlawful prohibition of the statute’s provisions for personal wireless services.

Crown Castle voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its claims against Reliable Constructors (see 2304120057), said its notice Wednesday (docket 23-006554-CI) in 6th Judicial Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Florida. Each side will bear its own costs, said the notice. Crown Castle had alleged Reliable Constructors caused nearly $66,000 in damage to an underground Crown Castle telecom cable in April 2021 while excavating with mechanized equipment in Oldsmar, Florida.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court amended the briefing schedule in AT&T’s appeal of a district court’s Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against the city of Los Altos, California, to accommodate a mediation conference that was rescheduled to June 5 from Wednesday, said the circuit mediator’s order (docket 22-16432). AT&T’s opening brief is now due July 25, and the city’s answering brief deadline is now Aug. 25, said the order. AT&T’s optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief, it said. Los Altos rejected AT&T’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046). The U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled AT&T's subsequent lawsuit was moot because the city replaced the 2019 law in 2022.