Charter’s Spectrum Pacific West subsidiary and the city of Yuma, Arizona, couldn’t agree on the “substance and content” of their joint status report, said their filing Friday (docket 2:20-cv-01204) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Charter sued Yuma in June 2020 over the city's alleged refusal to comply with Arizona's universal video franchising law. Yuma’s counterclaims assert Charter’s lawsuit breached the indefeasible right of use agreement that Time Warner Cable, Charter's predecessor company, signed with the city over use of Charter’s fiber capacity. Yuma intends to file a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim against Charter for breach of contract, “but before filing the summary judgment motion, would also agree to mediation of its claimed damages,” said their joint filing. Charter argues the city “failed to provide an overview of the basis for the proposed motion,” it said. Yuma’s proposed dispositive motion “would be fruitless,” because the city “already agreed with Charter to file a joint stipulation of dismissal of Charter’s claims,” rendering Yuma’s counterclaims moot, it said. “Charter objects to any dispositive motion briefing.” In light of the joint stipulation for dismissal, Charter “objects to all mediation,” it said. Yuma believes the case would be suitable for a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, said the city.

Property owner Academy Medical’s lease agreement with T-Mobile uses “plain and unambiguous language” to say what a lessee may do and what a sublessee may do, said Academy’s latest volley Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) in U.S. District Court for New Mexico in its bitter cell tower fight with T-Mobile and Crown Castle (see 2302160034). T-Mobile asserts it was within its rights to sublet rooftop tower space to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network, but Academy maintains it was unlawful for T-Mobile to do so without the property owner’s written consent. No part of the lease permits Crown Castle to demand that Academy “consent to a permit so that an entity unrelated” to either T-Mobile or Academy, namely Dish, can perform improvements on the leased site, said Academy’s Thursday filing. Crown Castle treats Dish as though it’s a sublessee of T-Mobile, but Dish is Crown Castle’s sublessee, it said. Academy said Crown Castle “has no legal or contractual right” to ask Academy “to do an affirmative act for any party.” T-Mobile has no “contractual relationship” with Dish for the leased site, nor does Academy have one with Crown Castle or Dish.

Whatever injuries plaintiffs Verizon and Tarpon Towers may have sustained in their cell tower dispute with the town of Saugerties, New York, were caused by their own negligence or “culpable conduct,” or by someone over whom Saugerties "had no control," said the town’s answer Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-107) in U.S. District Court for Northern New York in Albany. The Verizon-Tarpon amended and supplemental complaint Jan. 19 requested expedited review under the Telecommunications Act of their challenge against Saugerties, and for declaratory and injunctive relief for the immediate issuance of all approvals and permits necessary for construction of a cell tower that Verizon applied for in May 2019 (see 2301190046). Saugerties officers at all times “were government officials performing discretionary functions in their capacity,” said the town. “Their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable man would or should have known, and that by reason thereof they have qualified immunity from liability in this action.”

Crown Castle “joins and adopts the legal reasoning” of motions by co-plaintiffs Extenet and Verizon to bar introduction at trial of Rochester’s “cost spreadsheet” and to preclude the city’s telecom director, Louie Tobias, who created the spreadsheet, “from offering expert opinion testimony,” said its memorandum of law Monday (docket 6:20-cv-06866) in U.S. District Court for Western New York. Common to the three complaints brought by Crown Castle, Extenet (6:20-cv-07129) and Verizon (6:19-cv-06583) are the allegations that Rochester’s wireless deployment fees significantly exceed a reasonable approximation of the city’s actual costs of maintaining the rights-of-way (ROW) used or occupied by telecom service providers, in violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act (see 2302270007). A single bench trial on the three consolidated cases is scheduled to open June 1. The spreadsheet is “inadmissible” at trial because it doesn’t qualify for “the public records exception to hearsay,” and it was prepared “in anticipation of litigation,” said Crown Castle. Several other factors make the spreadsheet “inherently unreliable and untrustworthy,” it said. Any opinion testimony the city plans to induce from Tobias about the reasonableness of Rochester’s costs or fees also is inadmissible because he “has not been designated as, nor is he qualified to testify as, an expert witness,” it said. The court has determined the city bears the burden of proof at trial “to demonstrate that its fees are a reasonable approximation of its costs” to manage the public ROW, said Crown Castle. The spreadsheet and Tobias’ testimony figure prominently in Rochester’s efforts to meet its burden, the memorandum said.

Defendant American Tower International “clearly and unequivocally relinquished any entitlement” to remove the complaint of Terra Towers, TBS Management and DT Holdings to U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami, said the plaintiffs' reply Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-20009) to ATI’s opposition to remand (see 2302170012). The plaintiffs allege ATI improperly withdrew from an $800 million Latin American telecom tower project contract called Project Codu. They want the case remanded to the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County where it originated because the parties stipulated to facts during their underlying arbitration proceedings that negate “the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in this cause.” ATI contends in a “poorly conceived argument” that the parties didn’t stipulate to any facts that waive ATI’s right to removal or that negate the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, said the plaintiffs’ reply. To properly remove the action to federal court in Miami, ATI needed to demonstrate “the subject matter of the state court complaint relates to the arbitration provisions” found within the site development agreement (SDA) among the parties’ Peruvian subsidiaries, they said. But ATI adopted “precisely the opposite legal position” during the underlying arbitration when it asserted in its February 2022 responsive pleading that Project Codu didn’t arise out of or relate to the SDA, they said. Having asserted that contention in the underlying arbitration, ATI clearly and unequivocally disclaimed its removal rights under the New York Convention, they said. ATI would have the court “subscribe to the tenuous proposition that no waiver occurred because it did not utter” the precise words of a waiver, they said. For “obvious reasons,” the court “should reject this specious contention,” they said.

T-Mobile agreed with three Bronx landlords to the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of their rooftop antenna dispute, said their stipulation Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, it said. T-Mobile said it tried unsuccessfully for months to get the buildings from which it leases rooftop space to sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004). The landlords said they rebuffed the requests for fear T-Mobile was trying to use the FDNY paperwork request as a ploy to grab more rooftop space.

The Wireless Contractors Association (WCA) seeks a summons requiring defendant subcontractor New Age Telecom to show cause within 20 days why its four claims of lien against the plaintiff totaling more than $84,000 in unpaid balances shouldn’t be vacated, said WCA's Feb. 13 complaint (docket 16-2023-CA-000911-XXXX-MA) in the 4th Judicial Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida. WCA signed a Sept. 1 contract for New Age to furnish “certain construction services” on WCA’s projects on an “as-needed basis,” it said. In each of four WCA projects, which appear from attached purchase orders to be for Dish Network installations in and around Jacksonville, New Age “failed to satisfy all contractual conditions precedent in order to be entitled to payment,” it said. New Age files the claims of lien “notwithstanding its material breach of the parties’ agreement and failure to complete its scope of work,” it said. New Age “abandoned” each of the four projects, and WCA was forced to hire another subcontractor to complete New Age’s “scope of work,” it said. The claims of lien are “invalid and unenforceable,” it said. If New Age doesn't respond to the show cause summons, WCA seeks an order vacating and canceling the liens of record and awarding WCA costs and attorney’s fees, plus any relief the court “deems proper,” it said. WCA's website says it specializes in tower services, small-cell distribution, 5G upgrades and site "acquisition and integration." New Age's website says it's a specialist in "structured cabling," among other communications and security services.

Crown Castle recovered $71,342 in damages, plus court costs and interest, in its negligence complaint against contractor R&Y Underground, said a final judgment Monday (docket CACE-22-017496) in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The court granted Crown Castle’s default motion last month (see 2301110001). Crown Castle alleged R&Y caused “actual damages” when excavating at an intersection in Miramar, Florida, when it failed to use “accepted engineering and construction practices.”

The village of Muttontown, New York, will file a letter motion by Monday for a discovery stay in its cell tower fight with AT&T (see 2302210056), said U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip in a text-only order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-5524). AT&T’s letter in opposition to the discovery stay is due March 13, it said. AT&T alleges Muttontown improperly denied its application to build a 165-foot-tall cell tower to remedy service gaps in its wireless coverage (see 2210090001). Muttontown seeks the discovery stay as it awaits the ruling of U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert on the village’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint. Dunst’s order said his schedule won't be adjourned “absent a showing of good cause and confirmation that the parties have complied with their meet and confer obligations.” Muttontown will be permitted no reply brief unless the court grants leave, it said. “Further, the parties are on notice that their repeated filings demonstrate a continued disregard for compliance” with Dunst’s “individual rules,” it said. Future failure to comply with the rules “may result in a denial of requested relief,” it said. More than five months after the filing of AT&T’s Sept. 15 complaint, Muttontown hasn't filed a formal answer. Time and again during the litigation, Dunst instructed the parties to meet and confer on joint status reports, only to watch them respond with separate filings (see 2301200043).

Muttontown, New York, seeks a discovery stay in its cell tower fight with AT&T until U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for Eastern New York in Central Islip rules on the village’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint, Muttontown wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in a letter Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). 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 stay. AT&T responded in a separate letter to Dunst Monday, asking the judge to require Muttontown to file a formal motion for a discovery stay by Friday, or by “a date certain as soon thereafter as possible.” Muttontown “should not be permitted to further delay this matter” on the pretext that the court “has to first determine if a motion for a stay is necessary,” said AT&T. If the court enters a stay without a formal motion, AT&T “requests an opportunity to respond,” it said. Contrary to Muttontown’s assertions, AT&T’s claims are not more than likely to be dismissed, “and the pending motion to dismiss does not justify a stay of discovery,” it said. AT&T alleges the municipality violated the Telecommunications Act by denying the company’s application to build a 165-foot-tall cell tower to remedy service gaps in its wireless coverage, and not basing the denial on substantial written evidence in the record (see 2210090001).