Extenet in March 2021 hired a contractor, U.S. Infrastructure, to locate and mark its underground utility cable and facilities under a 48-hour “dig notice” to protect the cable and facilities from potential damage during excavation, said the excavator, Horizon Underground, in a third-party petition Feb. 10 (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st District Texas Court in Dallas County. The contractor negligently “marked a portion of the area but not all of the area identified in the dig notice,” said the petition. It marked the Extenet cable as terminating at an existing utility pole, but that cable in fact extended for another 650 feet past the pole, and that’s where the damage occurred, said Horizon. Extenet in a Dec. 16 complaint blamed Horizon employees for causing $34,454 in damages while excavating, boring and trenching without Extenet’s consent (see 2212200067). But in the "unlikely event" the court finds Horizon liable to Extenet for the damages, Horizon “asserts that it is entitled to judgment for contribution” against U.S. Infrastructure, said the petition.

U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez for Southern Florida in Miami signed an order Monday (docket 1:23-cv-20009) scheduling a trial to begin during the two-week period starting Feb. 12 in Terra Towers’ breach of contract complaint against American Tower International. Terra and co-plaintiffs TBS Management and DT Holdings allege ATI improperly withdrew from an $800 million Latin American telecom tower project contract called Project Codu (see 2301030035). ATI moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds a contract was never in place for ATI to breach (see 2302010002). Mediation in the case is required, and Martinez gave the parties an Oct. 12 deadline for choosing a mediator, said the order. Mediation is to be completed by Dec. 11, it said.

Defendant Academy Medical’s “meandering” Jan. 12 counterclaim alleging T-Mobile and Crown Castle were guilty of cell tower deceit (see 2301130001) should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, said the plaintiffs’ motion Friday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) in U.S. District Court for New Mexico. T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy prevented the defendant “from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease,” alleged the property owner’s counterclaim. But the “plain language” of the amended cell tower lease “expressly permits subleasing and imposes no limitations on subleasing,” except a requirement that any sublessee agree to abide by the terms of the contract, countered the plaintiffs. The provision “does not in any way restrict or narrow a sublessee’s rights relative to those of the original lessee,” nor does the lease prohibit a further sublease by any sublessee, they said. The “net effect” is that a sublessee operating in accordance with the terms of the lease “may further sublease and need not provide any notice” to Academy, as the property owner contends was required, they said.

Google Fiber struck utility lines and damaged underground cable owned by Rocky Mountain Power, alleged a Feb. 2 negligence complaint in Utah's 3rd Judicial District Court in Salt Lake City. The defendants were digging within 24 inches of the utility line markings using power-driven equipment and failed to exercise due care in their work, it said. They also failed to notify the proper parties to correctly locate and mark utility lines after the markings were disturbed and failed to notify the proper parties to mark and re-mark utility lines, said the complaint. Google Fiber refused to pay for damages it allegedly caused. Rocky Mountain Power seeks cost of damages, at $3,403, for labor, services and materials.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Northern New York in Albany set an in-person status conference for Feb. 22 at 11 a.m. EST in Verizon’s cell tower dispute with the town of Saugerties, New York, said a text-only entry Wednesday in docket 1:22-cv-107. Verizon and co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers allege the town’s refusal to act on Verizon’s May 2019 tower application violates the Telecommunications Act by failing to render a decision within a reasonable period of time, preventing Verizon from providing service where known service gaps and network deficiencies “indisputably exist.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a stay Monday on a League of California Cities challenge of the FCC’s June 2020 wireless infrastructure declaratory ruling. The court granted parties’ joint motion (see 2301300035). The court schedule says the FCC’s brief will be due March 1. Intervenors supporting the agency must file by March 8, cities’ reply briefs are due March 31 and petitioner-side intervenors April 7 (case 20-71765).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip entered a text-only order Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) holding in abeyance the two motions to intervene in AT&T’s cell tower dispute with the village of Muttontown until District Judge Joanna Seybert’s decision on the village’s anticipated motion to dismiss. Dunst ordered the parties to file a joint report by Feb. 17 informing the court whether they will request a stay on discovery in light of the motion to dismiss. AT&T is suing to force Muttontown to approve construction of a 150-foot cell tower to remedy an allegedly significant service gap (see 2301200043). Before the court are two motions to intervene from about 30 village residents seeking to block the tower for fear it will damage their property values and aesthetics.

Building owner Olcan III “neglected its property for years, failing to conduct the routine upkeep and care required to maintain the building,” alleged Global Tower in a memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) in U.S. District Court for Maryland supporting its motion to dismiss Olcan’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Olcan’s amended complaint alleges Global Tower’s use of an easement to access the tower on the rooftop of a building that Olcan owns caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits” (see 2211140050). It seeks $75,000 in damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and public nuisance. But Global Tower’s lease space “occupies only a small portion of the building’s rooftop,” said its memorandum. Instead of addressing the damage caused by its own neglect, Olcan “filed this lawsuit in an attempt to coerce Global Tower into paying for repairs at the property,” it said. Olcan’s assertions “amount to nothing more than unsupported, threadbare ‘defendant harmed me’ allegations that are insufficient to state a claim as a matter of law,” it said. Olcan “baldly asserts it has suffered harm, but does not specifically identify the harm or how Global Tower caused it,” it said.

Terra Towers’ complaint alleging American Tower International improperly withdrew from an $800 million Latin American telecom tower project agreement called Project Codu (see 2301030035) “is without merit and should be dismissed as a matter of law,” said ATI’s motion Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-20009) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. “The parties never entered an agreement,” nor did they ever sign a “signed a definitive agreement,” said ATI. “The parties never even signed a term sheet reflecting the terms of the deal,” it said. All negotiations were nonbinding, “as is evident from the numerous term sheets the parties exchanged during the many months Project Codu was negotiated, ultimately in futility,” it said. “A breach of contract claim cannot survive based on the facts alleged here.”

Contractor Horizon Underground denies “each and every allegation” in Extenet’s negligence complaint that its employees damaged Extenet’s underground cable and facilities while excavating, boring and trenching without Extenet’s consent (see 2212200067), said Horizon’s answer Monday (docket DC-22-17265) in the 101st Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas. Horizon “pleads entitlement to all defenses” under chapters 32 and 33 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, including “the provisions regarding reduction of damages, credits for settlements, joint and several liability, contribution, and indemnity,” it said. Extenet’s complaint seeks damages of $34,454, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and further relief.