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).

The village of Muttontown, New York, and its various component boards, defendants in AT&T’s lawsuit to allow construction of a 165-foot-tall cell tower (see 2211150040), seek a deadline extension to Dec. 30 to respond to two motions to intervene filed by 30 resident property owners seeking to block the tower, said their letter motion Wednesday to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip. The property owners plan to seek leave to file reply briefs, said the letter. The village is not opposed, so long as the reply briefs do not “materially delay the resolution of the intervention motions,” it said. Though permitting reply briefs is for the court to decide, the parties conferred and agree the briefs should be filed by Jan. 16, it said. The earliest possible date for in-person oral argument on the motions to intervene would be the week of Jan. 30, said the letter. The property owners say they worry AT&T is conspiring behind their backs with village officials to build the tower over the objections of the local zoning board of appeals. AT&T denies those allegations.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled separate dial-in mediation conferences for Monday in AT&T’s legal fight with the city of Los Altos, California, said an order Tuesday (docket 22-16432). The phone conference for counsel for plaintiff-appellant AT&T is set for 1 p.m. PST, with a second call for counsel for Los Altos to follow at 1:30 p.m. PST, said the order. AT&T is appealing a district court's Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against Los Altos for rejecting its application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046).

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher for Maryland signed a scheduling order Monday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) setting an April 5 deadline for completing discovery in Crown Castle’s infrastructure complaint against commercial contractor Black Electric. A joint status report will be due when discovery is complete, said Gallagher’s order. Crown Castle alleges that the contractor’s workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications fiber that Crown Castle had installed along Maryland's Hatem Bridge, but Black Electric last week denied the allegations and asked the court to dismiss the case with prejudice (see [Ref:2211160009[).

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals directed Verizon’s appeal in the case involving the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, to be held in abeyance while the parties try to mediate their dispute, said an order Monday (docket 22-16153). The court ordered the docket closed for administrative purposes until June 1 and directed the parties to furnish the mediator with an updated status report by May 25. “This administrative closure is not a decision on the merits and no mandate will issue in connection with this order,” said the court. Verizon’s Jan. 18 complaint in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose alleged the city violated the Telecommunications Act by failing to act within a reasonable period of time on Verizon’s application to place, modify or construct a personal wireless service facility within the city and that the municipality breached a settlement agreement that would have ended the dispute (see 2210270073). Verizon is appealing the district court’s June 30 dismissal of its complaint and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the city.

AT&T wants the U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis to vacate and reverse the denial of Monroe County, Illinois, officials of AT&T’s application for zoning approval of a small-cells wireless communications facility, said the carrier Friday in its second motion for summary judgment (docket 3:20-cv-01327). The county’s decision-making process violated portions of the Illinois Counties Code governing approval of the telecommunications facilities, particularly the code’s “timeliness requirements,” said the motion. The court previously denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment, but granted AT&T leave to amend its complaint regarding the timeliness of the county’s decision to deny the application, it said. AT&T filed that amended complaint Oct. 15, alleges the county’s decision violates the Illinois Counties Code because the county failed to act on the application within 75 days after its submission, and therefore the application “must be deemed approved,” it said. Monroe County argues its zoning ordinance blocks AT&T from installing a tower since the carrier would have a storage facility on the site. The county's law says that no public office or principal repair or storage facilities may be maintained in connection with the site. Across the U.S., the wireless industry continues to litigate against some localities while settling with others over denied small-cell applications (see 2210170036).

"Counsel must be prepared to set a trial date” for Verizon, ExteNet and Crown Castle lawsuits against Rochester, New York, at a Dec. 20 status conference, said a U.S. District Court for Western New York text order Friday (dockets 19-cv-6583, 20-cv-7129 and 20-cv-6866). The virtual meeting starts at 2 p.m., the court said. The court on Aug. 22 denied summary judgment motions by each industry plaintiff and the city. The companies say Rochester’s small-cell fees are unlawfully high.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for the Southern District of New York scheduled a telephonic continuation of Tuesday’s initial case management conference for Dec. 7 at 12:30 p.m. EST in T-Mobile’s infrastructure lawsuit against three Bronx landlords (see 2210270004). T-Mobile’s Sept. 30 complaint seeks a permanent injunction compelling each defendant to sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access their rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities. Giving T-Mobile the access it seeks will result in its taking of additional roof space, responded the landlords in their Oct. 26 answer to the complaint.

Commercial contractor Black Electric “generally denies each and every allegation” in Crown Castle’s Sept. 29 complaint that its workers damaged a conduit holding telecommunications 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, said the contractor in its answer to the complaint Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02497) in U.S. District Court for Maryland. Black Electric asked the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, that judgment be entered in its favor, plus that an award be granted of “appropriate costs” and attorney’s fees. The alleged damages “were not caused or proximately caused by any actions or omissions” by Black Electric personnel, it said. Crown Castle’s claims “are barred, in whole or in part, by contributory negligence,” it said. Crown Castle seeks recovery of the $403,000 in costs for labor and equipment it said were required to repair the damage, plus interest and court costs.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts granted the joint motion of Vertex Towers and the town of Hubbardston, Massachusetts, to stay for 60 days the case involving Vertex allegations that the local zoning board is in violation of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act by denying Vertex’s application for a multi-user wireless communications facility (see 2210250001), said her electronic order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-11551). Vertex and Hubbardston “are in settlement negotiations and the requested stay will afford them an opportunity to fully explore” a resolution in the case, said their joint motion Tuesday.