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.

STC Two filed an unopposed motion Monday to continue the preliminary pretrial conference in a cell tower land dispute in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus after the parties reached a settlement in principle. Property owner Thomas Branham installed a padlock at the entrance to the tower in breach of his contract, saying STC Two's tower wasn’t installed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted (see 2304170051). The parties are finalizing settlement documents, the motion (docket 2:23-cv-0076) said, and asked the court to continue the preliminary pretrial conference until at least May 23; Branham has no objection.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for June 7 at 9 a.m. CDT in New Orleans in the city of Pasadena, Texas, appeal against Crown Castle, said a calendar clerk’s notice Friday (docket 22-20454). Pasadena argues the minimum spacing and undergrounding requirements in the city’s design manual for Crown Castle's small-cell installations are “facially valid” and consistent with the city’s authority (see 2212090044). Crown Castle sued Pasadena in September 2020, asserting the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing requirement in the city’s design manual because that manual significantly limits the locations where it may install small-cell nodes and node support poles in the public rights of way.

Sept. 18 is the hard termination date for discovery in the T-Mobile and Crown Castle cell tower lease dispute with property owner Academy Medical (see 2211300001), said a scheduling order signed Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) by U.S. District Judge James Browning for New Mexico in Albuquerque. Jury selection and trial in a “trailing docket” will begin Jan. 8, it said. Lessee T-Mobile and subtenant Crown Castle allege Academy is blocking Crown Castle from upgrading the tower on space leased from Academy for Dish Network’s 5G network buildout. Academy countersued, alleging T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy prevented the property owner from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease (see 2301130001).

Following a status report from parties in a cell tower dispute, U.S. District Judge James Graham issued an order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) Friday extending the temporary restraining order for 14 days (see Ref: 2304110035]), said a filing Friday in District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The parties, STC Two, and property owner Thomas Branham, who owns the land where STC has a tower, have engaged in “meaningful negotiations” concerning potential resolution, said Graham, who didn’t oppose their request for an extension. “Considering both parties’ participation in negotiation and the benefits of giving the parties additional time to resolve the dispute” under terms of the original restraining order, “there is good cause to extend” it, he said. Branham, who owns the property where STC 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. In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. Another status report is due by April 24.

Contractor Reliable Constructors caused nearly $66,000 in damage to an underground Crown Castle telecommunications cable in April 2021 while excavating with mechanized equipment in Oldsmar, Florida, alleged Crown Castle’s negligence complaint Tuesday (docket 23-006554-CI) in 6th Judicial Circuit Court in Pinellas County, Florida. Reliable failed to excavate in a “careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” as required under Florida law, alleged Crown Castle in the complaint. The contractor also failed to take adequate measures to protect Crown Castle’s cable against damage, it said. It seeks recovery of the actual damages, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and “all other and further relief” that the court deems “just and proper.”

The parties in a cell tower access dispute “have engaged, and continue to engage, in meaningful negotiations,” said a Monday status update (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in response to a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Graham March 31 (see 2304030026) in District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Graham granted a temporary 14-day restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring defendant Thomas Branham to deliver keys for a locked gate to plaintiff STC Two. Plaintiffs requested an additional 14 days Monday, to April 24, saying the parties would benefit from additional time to resolve the pending claims and counterclaims before the court sets case management deadlines. STC Two and Global Signal alleged Thomas Branham, who owns the property where STC 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 (see 2303270025). 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. In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. STC’s trespass has been “knowing and intentional,” resulting in “unconsented to and a malicious violation of” the grant of easement and Branham’s use of his land, he said.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta understands that neither plaintiff T-Mobile nor defendant Roswell, Georgia, will file an interlocutory appeal of her March 17 opinion and order, said an order she signed Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464) on “next steps in the case” for resolving the parties’ pending motions for summary judgment. Her opinion and order said the FCC’s September 2018 small-cells declaratory ruling can’t be applied retroactively to Roswell’s 2017 denial of T-Mobile’s cell tower application (see 2303210036). Before holding a telephone status conference that Totenberg scheduled for April 26 at 2 p.m., she wants counsel and clients to confer over whether the parties should proceed with the previously continued evidentiary hearing before the court from 2018, said her order. She asked how that can be done “in the most efficient manner feasible given the passage of time, the potential availability of new additional alternative sites, and the business, technological, and resource developments that have occurred since 2018.” She also asked whether it would “make sense” to proceed with an amended or new T-Mobile tower application and hearing before the Roswell city council, “given the passage of time since the last application,” and other “considerations” and “relevant factors,” said her order.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively scheduled oral argument for the week of June 5 in the city of Pasadena, Texas, appeal against Crown Castle, said a court notice Thursday (docket 22-20454). Pasadena wants the 5th Circuit to reverse the district court’s Aug. 2 decision granting Crown Castle summary judgment in its infrastructure legal fight with the city. Pasadena argues the minimum spacing and undergrounding requirements in the city’s design manual for Crown Castle's small-cell installations are “facially valid” and consistent with the city’s authority (see 2212090044). Crown Castle sued Pasadena in September 2020, asserting the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing requirement in the city’s design manual because that manual significantly limits the locations where it may install small-cell nodes and node support poles in the public rights of way.

U.S. District Judge James Graham for Southern Ohio granted a temporary 14-day restraining order under Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring defendant Thomas Branham to deliver keys for a locked gate to plaintiff STC Two, said the Friday order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. STC Two alleged that Branham, who owns the property where STC 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 (see 2303270025). 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. In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. STC’s trespass has been “knowing and intentional,” resulting in “unconsented to and a malicious violation of” the grant of easement and Branham’s use of his land, he said. Branham said STC failed to complete "to the satisfaction of the City of Columbus” the permit process, causing the city to look to him for noncompliance with permit ordinances. Also, Branham said, STC risked disturbing the occupancy of his other tenants, in violation of the lease, and “may have failed to provide” an insurance certificate, also in violation of the lease. STC won’t be harmed financially if it’s enjoined from its "unlawful trespass."