Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sought a court order Thursday granting the state immediate possession of property owned by Crown Castle and other entities in Galveston County for a highway improvement project, said his petition (docket CV-0091156) in Galveston County Court. The state made a “bona fide” offer to acquire the property under Texas’ property code, but plaintiff and defendants have been unable to agree on the value of the real estate “to be condemned” or the damages resulting from the state’s acquisition, Paxton said. He asked that special commissioners be appointed, as provided by law, to assess the owners’ damages and to grant the state immediate possession -- pending the results of further litigation -- upon its deposit of the amount of damages awarded and costs awarded to property owners, with the court subject to the order of the property owners. Crown Castle didn't comment

With mediation having failed this month in T-Mobile’s rooftop antenna dispute with three Bronx landlords (see 2301170036), U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for Southern New York signed a scheduling order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) setting a March 31 deadline for completing all nonexpert discovery. The order anticipates a bench trial will take up to two days but doesn’t set a trial date. T-Mobile asserts it has the right under its long-term rooftop leases with the landlords to upgrade its telecommunications equipment on the buildings’ rooftop, said the order. T-Mobile asked the landlords to sign a form required by the New York Fire Department to allow the upgrades to proceed at each site, it said. According to T-Mobile, the landlords refuse to sign the form without valid reason and “are trying to hold up the work needed to improve the telecommunications in and around these urban buildings,” it said. “The issue is one of contract interpretation,” it said. The defendant landlords also seek “proper compensation” for T-Mobile’s “additional use” of the rooftop space, it said.

Contractor Y&Y Underground Services caused nearly $6,200 in damage to Crown Castle’s telecom cable near an intersection in Miami while excavating with mechanized equipment in January 2019, alleged Crown Castle’s Jan. 20 complaint (docket 2023-001806-SP-26). Y&Y “acted negligently” by failing to excavate in “a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” alleged the complaint, filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County. Crown Castle seeks reimbursement for the loss of the use of its cable, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. Y&Y didn’t comment Wednesday.

Verizon and the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, asked U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston to enter their agreement for judgment settling their cell tower dispute, said their joint motion Monday (docket 1:22-cv-11789). Verizon sued Acushnet Oct. 20, alleging the town violated the Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 requirement that any local government decision to deny a request to deploy personal wireless services facilities be in writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record (see 2210200041). The settlement says Acushnet will vacate its Sept. 20 denial of Verizon’s application and grant the carrier a special permit authorizing construction of a 150-foot-tall monopole cell tower, said the motion. The court will retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the judgment but will otherwise dismiss Verizon’s claims with prejudice, with each side to bear its own court costs, said the proposed order.

AT&T and Core Communications continued finger-pointing Friday in the latter’s legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T. The two sides disagree on who bears the burden of proof in showing the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls (see 2212280001). Defendant AT&T refused to pay plaintiff Core for its access services, claiming nearly all the calls that CoreTel affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia connected were fraudulent. Core’s arguments it provided access services on “actual calls originated by genuine end users -- and did not bill for improper robocalls -- misstate the law” by failing to acknowledge “the default rule that plaintiffs ordinarily bear the burden of proof,” said AT&T’s opposition brief (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Core’s argument “is also premised on absurd and unreasonably narrow views of its common carrier obligations,” views that the FCC already said are “unlawful,” it said. Core is also wrong in claiming its access services tariffs, which Core unilaterally drafted, “somehow excuse it from proving that it provided genuine access services, and did not route or enable improper robocalls,” said AT&T. “Simply because Core elected not to include detailed tariff provisions that bar access charges on improper robocalls does not mean that such charges are authorized by the tariffs.” Core’s opposition brief argued AT&T is trying to convince the court “to create new telecommunications law to use not only as a shield against CoreTel’s claims, but also as a sword to use against other carriers in other compensation disputes.” AT&T is asking for the court’s blessing “to do what it has done here on a larger scale: withhold all monies it owes to a carrier (even when AT&T was paid for the same traffic by its own customers),” said Core. AT&T’s arguments are “better suited for a rulemaking proceeding at the FCC advocating for the imposition of new and additional burdens on wholesalers or intermediate carriers,” said Core. “This, however, is a collection action, not a rulemaking proceeding,” it said. CoreTel “has a burden to prove a breach of contract, and a breach of contract only,” it said.

Plaintiffs Tarpon Towers and Verizon Wireless requested expedited review under the Telecommunications Act of their complaint against the town of Saugerties, New York, and for declaratory and injunctive relief for the immediate issuance of all approvals and permits necessary for construction of a cell tower Verizon applied for in May 2019, said Thursday's amended and supplemental complaint (docket 1:22-cv-107) in U.S. District Court for Northern New York in Albany. The Thursday action involves the town’s “unlawful failure and refusal to act” on an application for a cellular tower proposed for a fire department property within the timeframe established under the Telecommunications Act. Saugerties’ refusal to act on the application violates the TCA by “failing to render a decision within a reasonable period of time” after it was filed with the town, preventing Verizon from providing service where known service gaps and network deficiencies “indisputably exist,” it alleged. The action also involves the town’s denial of plaintiffs' application to install and operate a cell phone tower on an alternative site on Industrial Drive “in an approved zoning district at a location specifically recommended” by the Saugerties Zoning Board of Appeals, it said. The Industrial Drive application was denied on “unfounded claims” that a tower there would be “more than a minimal intrusion to the community," said the document.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a Jan. 30 dial-in mediation conference in AT&T’s appeal of a district court’s Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against the city of Los Altos, California, said an order Wednesday (docket 22-16432). It’s at least the seventh mediation conference scheduled since AT&T’s appeal was docketed Sept. 20. The city rejected AT&T’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046). The district court ruled AT&T's subsequent lawsuit was moot because the city replaced the 2019 law this year. AT&T’s opening brief in its appeal is due Feb. 22, and Los Altos’ answer brief is due March 24. AT&T’s optional reply brief is due 21 days from the service date of the answer brief.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should revisit the “material prohibition standard” under Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act “in light of the cost-based test adopted by the FCC” in order 18-133, said wireless ISP NMSurf in its opening brief Tuesday (docket 22-2131). NMSurf (formerly CNSP) is appealing the U.S. District Court for New Mexico order upholding a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe (see 2211230073). Though the FCC adopted the order for small-cell wireless, “it has broad reasoning and application with policies that go beyond small cell,” said NMSurf. Santa Fe’s ordinance fee was “not adopted based on cost incurred” by the city but rather is “an old-style revenue producer of the sort that predates the TCA,” it said. Additionally, Santa Fe’s 2% fee “was arbitrarily adopted, without sufficient connection to use” of the public rights-of-way by service providers, it said. NMSurf asked the court to apply the FCC cost test to the 2% fee and “find preemption under Section 253.”

The “unsuccessful mediation” of the dispute between T-Mobile and three Bronx building landlords over the carrier’s access to rooftop wireless antennas (see 2212080004) sparked U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for Southern New York to schedule a Jan. 24 telephone conference to set a discovery schedule in the case, said his text-only order Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08369). The landlords who own the rooftop space that T-Mobile leases rebuffed the carrier's demand that they sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the company to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004).

Contractor JM Power was excavating with mechanized equipment in January 2019 in Royal Palm Beach, Florida, when it damaged Crown Castle’s underground telecom cable, in violation of Florida law, alleged Crown Castle in a Jan. 10 negligence complaint (docket 50-2023-CC000383XXXXMB) in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. JM’s conduct caused Crown Castle to incur nearly $34,000 in “actual damages,” it said. JM failed to excavate “in a careful and prudent manner based on accepted engineering and construction practices,” it said. It also failed to properly train and supervise its employees “and ensure they complied with all applicable statutes,” it said. The complaint seeks recovery of the monetary damages, plus interest. JM didn’t comment.