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."

All claims and defenses between AT&T and the city of Liberal, Kansas, are dismissed without prejudice, said their joint stipulation Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-01264) in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Wichita. Each party will bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, said the stipulation. AT&T sued Liberal in November, alleging the city violated the Telecommunications Act when it denied AT&T’s application for permission to build a 150-foot-tall wireless communication monopole facility and related equipment to be located on a local golf course (see 2211250013). AT&T said then it needed to install the facility to remedy “significant service deficiencies” in its personal wireless service coverage in the area.

AT&T seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the denial by Kootenai County, Idaho, of AT&T’s June 15 application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility in the northwest corner of the state near the Washington border, said the carrier’s complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. The proposed facility includes a 150-foot-tall lattice tower with a five-foot lightning rod installed at the top of the tower and related ground equipment on a seven-acre undeveloped parcel of land that's zoned “agricultural suburban,” it said. The tower would be fashioned from galvanized steel, “with an anti-glare finish to best blend with the surrounding area,” it said. AT&T needs the proposed facility to close a “significant” wireless service gap in the county, and it’s “the least intrusive means” to remedy that gap, it said. The local board of county commissioners approved AT&T’s application Oct. 27, but the board granted reconsideration and reversed the approval Feb. 28, concluding that the original approval was made in error, it said. The denial “is not supported by substantial evidence,” in violation of the Communications Act’s Section 332, it said. The county “has effectively prohibited AT&T’s installation of telecommunications and personal wireless service facilities,” also in violation of the statute. The denial also came more than 150 days after AT&T’s submission of a complete application, in violation of the FCC’s shot clock, it said. AT&T seeks an expedited review of its complaint as federal law requires, it said. The county didn’t comment.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione for Eastern New York in Central Islip set an in-person settlement conference June 8 at 11 a.m. in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village of Oyster Bay Cove, New York, said a minute entry Monday (docket 2:22-cv-07807). All fact discovery in the case is to be done by Aug. 15, with all expert discovery to be finished by Nov. 30, said the entry. AT&T alleged in a Dec. 22 complaint that Oyster Bay Cove and its planning and zoning appeals boards subjected AT&T to an “unreasonably protracted” application process to approve an 85-foot-tall cell tower, ultimately failing to act on the application before the last-extended expiration of the Telecommunication Act’s shot clock Nov. 23 (see 2212230054).

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher for Maryland signed a settlement order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) dismissing Crown Castle’s claims against contractor Black Electric, with each side to bear its own costs. The entry of the order “is without prejudice to the right of a party to move for good cause within 30 days to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated,” it said. Black Electric denied the allegations in Crown Castle’s Sept. 29 complaint that its workers damaged a conduit holding telecom fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge spanning the Susquehanna River on U.S. 40 between Havre de Grace and Perryville (see 2211160009).

Amberwell owes Crown Castle nearly $33,000, including late fees, for fiber solutions and ethernet services contracted for and performed, but never paid for, allege Crown Castle’s complaint Friday (docket N23C-03-231) in Delaware Superior Court. The complaint alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and seeks recovery of the invoiced charges, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Extenet contractor USIC Locating Services “generally denies each and every allegation” in Horizon Underground’s Feb. 10 third-party petition that it improperly located and marked Extenet’s underground utility cable and facilities during a 2021 excavation, causing nearly $35,000 in damages (see 2302200003), said USIC’s March 20 answer to the petition (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st Judicial District Texas Court in Dallas County. USIC, improperly named U.S. Infrastructure Corp. in the petition, “demands strict proof” from Horizon of its culpability, said its answer. “USIC would show that the negligent acts or omissions of some other individual or entity were the sole proximate cause” of Extenet’s alleged damages, it said. USIC demands a jury trial on Horizon’s allegations, it said.

The “carelessness and negligence” of defendants Hanover Co., A & B Construction and Tennyson Electric caused $59,164 in damage to Extenet’s underground fiber cable when they excavated at a San Francisco location in April 2020, alleged Extenet’s March 17 complaint (docket CGC-23-605243) in California Superior Court in San Francisco. Unnamed are an additional 10 John Doe defendants, unknown to Extenet, whose “true names and capacities” will be identified in an amended complaint when they're “ascertained,” said the complaint.

Spectrum Pacific West and the city of Yuma, Arizona, filed a joint stipulation of dismissal Wednesday (docket 2:20-cv-01204) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix of Yuma’s counterclaims against the Charter subsidiary. The city seeks to dismiss its counterclaim with prejudice, said the stipulation. As a result of the city’s dismissal, “the matter will be closed,” it said. Spectrum sued Yuma in June 2020 over the city's alleged refusal to comply with Arizona's universal video franchising law (see 2303090024). Yuma’s now-dismissed counterclaims asserted Spectrum’s lawsuit breached the indefeasible right of use agreement that Time Warner Cable, Spectrum’s predecessor company, signed with the city over the use of Spectrum’s fiber capacity.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied the Feb. 20 letter motion from Muttontown, New York, to stay discovery in its cell tower dispute with AT&T, pending a decision from U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybold on the village’s motion to dismiss. Forcing municipal clients to spend taxpayer money for claims “that more than likely will be dismissed would not be appropriate,” said the village of its rationale for a discovery stay (see 2302210056). AT&T disagreed, saying its claims aren’t more than likely to be dismissed, “and the pending motion to dismiss does not justify a stay of discovery.” The court concludes that a stay on all discovery isn’t “warranted at this time,” said Dunst’s text-only order Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The parties strongly disagree “about the merits of the not yet fully briefed dismissal motion,” it said. Dunst doesn’t “presume to address the strength (or weakness)” of the village’s pending dismissal motion at this time,” it said. The court also rejects Muttontown’s “hypothetical arguments about the alleged burden and prejudice associated with not yet served discovery demands in this case,” it said. The imposition of a stay on all discovery certainly would impose an "obvious prejudice" on AT&T, said the order.