Kootenai County, Idaho, seeks summary judgment against AT&T on the grounds that “there are no genuine issues of material fact” that exist to preclude it, and because the county “is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law,” said its motion Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00124) in U.S. District Court for Idaho. AT&T, in a year-old complaint, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief based on the county’s denial of its June 2022 application for a conditional use permit to build, operate and maintain a wireless telecommunication facility in the state's northwest corner, near the Washington border (see 2303300046). An “actual and justiciable controversy” exists in this case because the carrier seeks a reversal of the county’s denial of its application for a proposed wireless telecommunications facility, while the county “is vigorously defending that decision,” said the Kootenai’s memorandum in support of its motion. The defendant’s decision to deny AT&T’s application “was based on substantial evidence in the record,” as was required under the Telecommunications Act, it said. The county received 136 public comments regarding the application, it said. Most of the people who commented lived near the facility site, “and most of the comments were opposed to the proposal,” it said. Some comments “included extensive presentations and other materials in support of their position,” it said. Numerous people also testified, mostly in opposition, to the proposal at the four public hearings, it said. Kootenai’s denial doesn’t “effectively prohibit” AT&T from providing telecommunications services locally, said the memorandum. Both the carrier and the county have “specifically requested expedited review” of the county’s denial decision, it said. Consideration of evidence submitted outside the record made during the proceedings before the county “would be inconsistent with the expedited review that both parties have requested,” it said.

AT&T seeks summary judgment against Walla Walla, Wahington, for the city’s denial of its application for a conditional use permit to build a 65-foot cell tower (see 2312040002), said its motion Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. AT&T seeks the tower to provide and improve wireless services in a specific area of the city, said the motion. Federal law “limits local governments from preventing installation of wireless facilities, based on the nationwide goal of promoting availability of reliable wireless service,” it said. Walla Walla violated federal law by denying AT&T’s application, it said. Because the evidence submitted in support of this motion establishes there are no disputed issues of material fact, the carrier “is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law,” the motion said. It asks that the court order the city to approve the application and “any and all other authorizations necessary” for construction and operation of the proposed tower. AT&T’s wireless network “has experienced significant service problems” in the Walla Walla area for years, said its motion. By 2022, the carrier had solved its coverage gap in downtown Walla Walla, after the city approved an application to collocate AT&T facilities on an existing tower, it said. "That AT&T site has now been built and is on air," it said. But the significant service coverage gap in the the city's eastern residential portion -- the subject of the litigation -- “remains to this day,” it said. Placing a new wireless facility in this location is difficult due to Walla Wall’s zoning regulations “and the area’s residential makeup,” it said.

STC Two and Global Signal didn't adequately explain how recovery of rent they paid during defendant Thomas Branham’s breach of contract of a tower lease agreement would place them “in as good a position as it would have been in but for the breach,” said U.S. District Judge James Graham’s signed opinion and order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) granting in part and denying in part their motion for summary judgment Thursday in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The plaintiffs' Feb. 24, 2023, fraud complaint (see 2302280015) alleged Branham “willfully breached” a lease with STC for a 2,500-square-foot section of his property that employees of Global Signal, STC’s attorney-in-fact for the cellsite, had been accessing for over 20 years when he installed a padlock on the gate at the entrance to the cellsite and refused to remove it. STC and Global Signal sought damages of over $75,000 plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and a declaration that Branham is prohibited from interfering with plaintiffs’ and their customers’ maintenance and operation of the cellsite. Graham denied counts one and two, that Branham is liable for breach of contract because, although the defendant doesn’t dispute the claim, he argued that plaintiffs didn’t establish “actual loss.” Count two, seeking declaratory relief, is moot, the judge said. Graham granted plaintiffs’ motion in count three for a permanent injunction against Branham, determining that plaintiffs’ injury suffered -- no unfettered access to the leased premises and potential for future harm -- “is irreparable, and cannot be adequately remedied with monetary damages.” Permanently enjoining Branham from interfering with plaintiffs’ access also serves the public interest “by ensuring reliable wireless communications services,” the order said. Branham is permanently enjoined from blocking or otherwise interfering with plaintiffs’ access easement over the property to the cellsite 24/7 and from maintaining a padlock on the gate at the entrance of the property without providing plaintiffs a key, the order said. The court granted summary judgment to STC Two and Global Signal in an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the lease. A hearing will be set to determine the reasonableness and amount of attorney fees to be awarded, it said.

T-Mobile and the city of Roswell, Georgia, are asking U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta to set May 6 as the deadline for the city to serve the report of its new “proffered expert,” Ben Levitan, in the city’s cell tower fight against T-Mobile, said the parties’ proposed content scheduling order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). T-Mobile’s responsive expert witness report would be due June 19, and discovery would be complete by July 12, said the proposed order. Totenberg approved Levitan as the city’s substitute expert witness March 25 after its previous expert resigned unexpectedly March 2, citing stress from the assignment (see 2403110001).

Plaintiff homeowners Gary Blum and Lucia Billiot struck an agreement with AT&T, Lumen and Verizon to permit the defendants to conduct “certain usual, routine, or ordinary-course-of-business maintenance” on the telecom cables that are the subject of their litigation, including lead-covered cables, said their joint stipulated motion Friday (docket 6:23-cv-01748) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lafayette. The complaint is believed to be one of the first class actions brought by homeowners against the telecom industry for legacy lead-laden cables that reduced their property values (see 2312140001). Blum and Billiot allege that the defendants have left behind an extensive network of lead-covered cables and other associated lead equipment stretching across Louisiana. They further allege that the cables are an unlawful intrusion on private property and are causing all plaintiffs and putative class members “property damage and a risk to human health." The parties acknowledge that the defendants must be able to conduct usual, routine maintenance of their telecom infrastructure and associated equipment, “potentially including any lead-containing infrastructure, during the pendency of this litigation,” said their stipulated motion. If the defendants were to be unable to conduct that routine maintenance, “telecommunications services to the public may be interrupted,” it said. The maintenance activities “shall proceed in the ordinary course without any new or additional documentation or other measures beyond what would typically take place for such activities in the ordinary course,” it said. The defendants will be permitted to conduct business-as-usual activities on any of their telecommunications infrastructure and associated equipment, “including lead-containing telecommunications equipment," on all property in Louisiana, except for the named plaintiffs’ property, without notice to those plaintiffs or members of the putative class, said the motion. Actions taken in the course of conducting such activities “shall proceed in the ordinary course without any new or additional documentation or other measures” required of the defendants, beyond what would typically take place in the defendants’ usual business process, it said.

U.S. District Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh dismissed with prejudice AT&T’s three-yearlong small-cells infrastructure complaint against Pittsburgh, said her text-only docket entry Wednesday (docket 2:21-cv-00443). The dismissal was based on the parties’ joint stipulation Monday where the city said it had completed work on a “cost model” to determine fee schedules for installing small cells in the public rights of way. AT&T advised Pittsburgh April 9 that the city’s proposed updated fees would resolve the litigation, assuming the city council ultimately adopts those updated fees, said the stipulation. Pittsburgh advised the carrier that it expects formal council approval of the updated fee schedule but not before June, it said. Rather than further extend the court’s “ultimate disposition of this matter,” and anticipating that council will “act favorably” to adopt the updated fee schedule, the parties stipulated and agreed to dismissal of the action, it said. AT&T sued Pittsburgh in April 2021 after attempting to place small cells on poles in the city’s rights of way, allegedly to provide and improve wireless services. The Telecommunications Act limits the ability of municipalities to block installation of such facilities, and AT&T alleged that the city violated the TCA by blocking the installations.

AT&T sued the owners of vehicles involved in a July 2022 accident that damaged an above-ground AT&T utility box containing conduits, cables and other facilities, said its Tuesday complaint (docket 24CV007483) in California Superior Court in Sacramento. The complaint names Andrea Duran, Daniel Duran Lopez and Does 1 and 2, who were operating the vehicles involved in the collision that damaged the AT&T utility box in Sacramento. Andrea Duran operated her vehicle "so as to strike another vehicle" that was lawfully entering the intersection, causing that vehicle to collide with the AT&T facilities, the complaint said. Causes of action are motor vehicle negligence, trespass and trespass for chattel. AT&T seeks damages of $80,591.70 for the cost of repairing the equipment, overhead costs and loss of use of the facilities, the complaint said.

AT&T contractor Star Construction “denies every material allegation of wrongdoing” in the complaint by the Wetumpka, Alabama, water works and sewer board alleging that Star pierced an 8-inch terracotta sewer line when servicing the carrier’s underground telecom cables (see 2403250002), said Star’s answer Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00182) in U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. The defendant “specifically denies that any wrongful act or omission on its part or the part of its employees, servants, agents, or anyone acting on its behalf, probably or proximately caused any injury or damage” to the Wetumpka sewer board, said its answer. Star alleges that the plaintiff “bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before any award of damages can be made,” it said.

Danella, a company that services utilities, was performing work for National Grid replacing utility poles in Syracuse in May 2021 when it removed and transferred Verizon’s wireless facilities from an old pole to a new one without the carrier’s authorization, alleged Verizon’s Feb. 26 complaint in New York Supreme Court in Onondaga County, which the defendant removed Wednesday (docket 5:24-cv-00478) to U.S. District Court for Northern New York in Syracuse. For utility poles to which Verizon's facilities were attached, Danella was required to contact the carrier at the time of installation of each utility pole, “to coordinate with Verizon so that Verizon could transfer its facilities to the new pole at the time of installation,” said the complaint. Danella attached Verizon's facilities to the new pole using "J" hooks, “which was an improper method of attachment of the communication facilities to the utility pole,” it said. Over time, the "J" hook failed to support Verizon's cables, said the complaint. The "J" hook fell from the pole, and the cables became detached, it said. The cables, which were low-hanging because of their improper attachment to the pole, were severed in June 2022 when they were struck by a motor vehicle, it said. Verizon conducted repairs by splicing new cables into position, it said. “As a “direct and proximate result of the incident,” the plaintiff sustained damages of nearly $110,000 for the costs of repairing and replacing its facilities, which it now seeks to recover from Danella, the complaint said. But the damages that Verizon allegedly suffered were caused in whole or in part by Verizon’s own “culpable conduct,” said Danella’s March 22 answer to the complaint.

Verizon and Ocean City, New Jersey, seek a two-month extension of the remaining discovery deadlines in their personal wireless services facility dispute (see 2308140028) “in the interests of minimizing the time and expense of potentially unnecessary discovery,” they wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Skahill for New Jersey in Camden Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04370). The parties, over the past two months, have exchanged written interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, said their letter. During that time, the parties “have also continued to work diligently and collaboratively to identify potential alternate locations for the installation of the proposed wireless facility in order to try to resolve this matter via settlement,” it said. Under the proposed new deadlines, the date for completing fact discovery would be extended to June 28 from April 26, said the letter.