U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni for Massachusetts in Springfield set a Dec. 13 videoconference at 10 a.m. EST on the amended agreement AT&T reached with the town of Heath to settle an October 2021 complaint arising out of Heath’s denial of AT&T’s application for a special permit and zoning relief for construction and installation of a wireless telecommunications facility (see [Ref:2212010037[), said an electronic notice entered Monday (docket 3:21-cv-30106). The parties reached a settlement agreement nearly a year ago, but the court rejected it, saying AT&T and Heath failed to provide evidentiary basis on which to evaluate the merits of the resolution.

Crown Castle and contractor Black Electric are “engaged in discussions” to resolve their legal fight or “narrow the issues in dispute,” they told the U.S. District Court for Maryland in a joint status report Monday (docket 1:22-cv-02497). They want the court to modify its Nov. 21 scheduling order “to facilitate that process and preserve resources,” said the report. Under the modified schedule, the discovery deadline would move to May 31 from April 5, and the dispositive pretrial motions deadline would move to July 14 from May 5, said the report. Crown Castle alleges Black Electric’s workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge, but Black Electric denies culpability and seeks to dismiss the complaint (see 2211160009).

Judge Edith Brown Clement for the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied the motion by the city of Pasadena, Texas, for a 30-day delay to Dec. 30 to file the principal brief in its appeal to vacate a lower court’s Aug. 2 order granting summary judgment to Crown Castle (see 2212010001), said an order she signed Friday (docket 22-20454). Clement granted Pasadena a seven-day stay to Dec. 8. Pasadena is “CAUTIONED that no further extensions will be given,” said her order. Crown Castle opposed Pasadena’s requested 30-day extension but consented to a seven-day postponement. It was Pasadena’s third extension request since its appeal was docketed Sept. 1 and the first that Crown Castle opposed. 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 (ROWs). In granting summary judgment for Crown Castle, U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas in Houston said a “plain reading” of the manual shows the spacing requirement for small-node networks is “clearly more burdensome” than the requirements applicable to other users of the public ROWs.

The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals gave CNSP until Jan. 9 to file an appellant’s brief in an infrastructure dispute with Santa Fe (case 22-2131). The wireless ISP 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). The court granted CNSP’s motion from the same day to extend the due date to Jan. 9 from Dec. 27, in a Thursday text entry. The WISP’s lawyers sought extension because of “previously planned extended out of town family trips for Thanksgiving and Christmas.” Appellees didn’t oppose the extension.

AT&T reached an amended agreement with the town of Heath, Massachusetts, regarding an October 2021 complaint arising out of Heath’s denial of AT&T’s application for a special permit and associated zoning relief to allow construction and installation of a wireless telecommunications facility, said a text of the agreement for judgment filed Wednesday (docket 3:21-cv-30106) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. The parties nearly a year ago had reached a settlement agreement, but the court denied it on grounds that they failed to provide any evidentiary basis on which to evaluate the merits of the resolution. The parties believe the amended agreement “to be in their respective best interests and a fair and reasonable resolution of the pending civil action,” said Wednesday’s filing.

U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel for Massachusetts in Boston entered an electronic order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-11789) granting the unopposed motion of the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, for a deadline extension to Jan. 27 to answer Verizon’s Oct. 15 complaint that the town violated the Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 (see 2211290006). Verizon and Acushnet are engaged in settlement talks, and the deadline extension “will preserve limited public resources,” said the unopposed motion. Verizon alleges that when Acushnet and its board denied a Verizon application for a special permit to build and operate a proposed wireless facility, the town failed to put its denial reasons in a written decision, as the statute requires.

AT&T and Los Altos, California, should call into a mediation conference Monday at 1 p.m. PST, said 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mediator Roxane Ashe in a Tuesday order (case 22-16432). The court held some mediation conferences already in AT&T’s appeal of a district court's Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against Los Altos (see 2211230066). The city rejected the carrier’s application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046).

The village of Muttontown, New York, and its various component boards oppose the Nov. 2 motion to intervene filed by 30 resident property owners who seek to block AT&T’s construction of a 165-foot-tall cell tower, attorneys for the village told U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip by letter Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). The residents aren't entitled to intervention by right, nor are they entitled to “permissive intervention,” said the village. AT&T previously said it also opposed the motion to intervene (see 2211110002). AT&T sued Muttontown Sept. 15 for an order granting all variances, permits and approvals necessary for the cell tower construction to proceed. Named as defendants in the complaint were the village itself, plus its board of trustees, planning board, site and architectural review board, and zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The 30 residents contend all but the ZBA, which opposes the cell tower, are colluding with AT&T behind their backs to get the tower approved, likely by settling the case. An added worry, say the residents, is that the ZBA is represented in the case by the same attorneys who will argue on behalf of the other component boards that the tower’s construction should proceed.

Plaintiff Verizon Wireless assented to a motion by the town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, and five members of the town’s zoning board of appeals for a deadline extension to Jan. 27 to answer Verizon’s Oct. 15 complaint that the town violated the Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 (see 2210200041), said the motion (docket 1:22-cv-11789). Verizon and Acushnet are engaged in settlement talks, and the deadline extension “will preserve limited public resources,” said the motion. Verizon alleges that when Acushnet and its board denied a Verizon application for a special permit to build and operate a proposed wireless facility, the town failed to put its denial reasons in a written decision, as the statute requires.

The U.S. District Court in New Mexico denied CNSP’s motion to reconsider the court last month upholding a local telecom law requiring a revenue-based fee in Santa Fe (see 2210120030). “Given the substance of the Motion and the already-pending appeal, a reply would not aid [the court’s] its adjudication of the issue,” Judge Kenneth Gonzales ruled Nov. 15. An opposite conclusion by a New York federal court in Verizon Wireless v. Rochester (6:19-cv-06583) isn’t binding on the New Mexico court, he said. The FCC’s 2018 wireless infrastructure order’s effect “is a new issue, and this Court surmises it will be the subject of ongoing litigation,” said Gonzales. “If or when the standard governing right-of-way fees for wired internet service changes, this Court will dutifully apply it.” Waiting for the district court, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 17 lifted a pause on CNSP’s Oct. 28 appeal (case 22-2131).