The village of Muttontown, New York, and its component boards were granted a deadline extension to Nov. 28 to advise the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York of their position on the motion from 30 resident property owners to intervene in the case to stop AT&T’s construction of a 165-foot cell tower (see 2211110002), said a text order Monday (docket 2:22cv5524) by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst in Central Islip. Dunst also extended to Dec. 13 Muttontown’s deadline to answer the AT&T complaint that asks the court to require the village to approve the tower. 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.

U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip denied Crown Castle’s Oct. 31 request for a pre-motion conference to discuss an expedited briefing schedule for its anticipated motion for summary judgment against the town of Oyster Bay, said Azrack’s text order Monday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). In waiving the court’s pre-motion conference requirement, she adopted the parties' proposed briefing schedule, said the order. Crown Castle is to file its motion for summary judgment by Dec. 23, and Oyster Bay will file its response by Jan. 27, it said. Crown Castle’s optional reply is due Feb. 13, it said. Crown Castle, in its year-old Telecommunications Act infrastructure complaint against the town, alleges the statute bars local prohibition of any interstate or intrastate wireless services (see 2211090003). Yet Oyster Bay’s zoning board has denied Crown Castle's request to install 23 small wireless facilities in the town “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the statute requires, it alleges.

A Glen Burnie, Maryland, landowner is seeking $75,000 from a subsidiary of American Tower in U.S. District Court in Maryland, said an amended complaint filed Monday in docket 22-cv-02456-LKG. Global Tower Holdings’ use of an easement to access a cellphone tower on top of a building owned by Olcan III Properties has caused Olcan “to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits,” said the filing, which seeks damages for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and public nuisance. Global Tower’s “actions with its equipment and its lack of maintenance and care of Plaintiff’s property which has caused substantial and unreasonable harm to Plaintiff,” said the complaint. A response from the tower company is due Dec. 6. American Tower announced its agreement to buy Global Tower Partners in September 2013 for $4.8 billion.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted the city of Pasadena, Texas, its second deadline extension in less than a month to file its brief in its appeal of an Aug. 2 decision by U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas granting Crown Castle summary judgment in its wireless infrastructure fight with the municipality. Pasadena’s brief was due Wednesday, and now is due Nov. 30, said a text order (docket 22-20454). Hittner’s order permanently enjoined Pasadena from enforcing sections of its design manual for the purposes of preventing Crown Castle from installing new small nodes and node support poles in public rights of way (see 2210250002). Crown Castle’s September 2020 complaint alleged Pasadena, under the “guise” of its design manual, implemented a restriction that requires network nodes and supporting poles in a public right of way to be located at least 300 feet away from all existing utility or other node support poles. The spacing restriction is “so onerous” it effectively prohibits Crown Castle from deploying a distributed antenna system network in the city because the spacing requirement eliminates the necessary node locations, in violation of the Telecommunications Act, alleged the complaint.

The town of Oyster Bay, New York, doesn't oppose Crown Castle’s request to file a motion for summary judgment in its year-old Telecommunications Act infrastructure complaint against the town, Oyster Bay lawyers wrote U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). Lawyers for the two sides have discussed a proposed briefing schedule that would have Crown Castle serve their moving papers by Dec. 23, they said. Oyster Bay’s opposition would be due Jan. 27, and Crown Castle’s reply Feb. 13, they said. The statute bars local prohibition of any interstate or intrastate wireless services, yet Oyster Bay’s zoning board has denied Crown Castle's request to install 23 small wireless facilities in the town “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the statute requires, said Crown Castle’s November 2021 complaint (see 2211010002).

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Wicks for Eastern New York in Central Islip entered an electronic order Sunday (docket 2:21-cv-06305) granting Crown Castle’s Friday joint motion with the town of Oyster Bay, New York, to adjourn sine die their Nov. 22 final pretrial conference amid Crown Castle’s announced plans to seek summary judgment in the nearly year-old wireless infrastructure case (see Ref:2211010002]). Also adjourned indefinitely is the parties’ Nov. 15 deadline to file their joint proposed pretrial order, said Wicks. If Crown Castle’s motion for summary judgment is denied, the joint proposed pretrial order will be due within 21 days of the denial order, he said. Crown Castle alleges that for more than six years, it has sought approvals from Oyster Bay to install 23 small wireless facilities to remedy significant gaps in reliable wireless services or to add capacity in high-demand areas. The company alleges the town’s zoning board has denied its request to install the facilities “without substantial evidence contained in a written record,” as Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act requires, it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for Southern New York scheduled a Rule 16 telephonic case management conference for Nov. 16 at noon EST in T-Mobile’s wireless infrastructure complaint against the landlords of three Bronx buildings, said his order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369). The landlords are rebuffing T-Mobile’s demands to sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access the leased space on their rooftops to upgrade its wireless antenna facilities (see 2210270004)

Roughly 30 Muttontown, New York, residents seek to intervene in the infrastructure fight between AT&T and the village because their homes “would be adversely affected, both aesthetically and economically,” if AT&T were permitted to build a 165-foot-tall cell tower in the community, said the residents’ attorney, Andrew Campanelli, in a declaration Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) at U.S. District for Eastern New York in Central Islip in support of their motion to intervene. Campanelli makes many of the same arguments as a previous resident intervenor, Russell McRory (see 2210200034), alleging AT&T is colluding with village officials to build the tower against the objections of the local zoning board of appeals (ZBA). The residents' and the defendants' interests are “not identical,” said Campanelli. “I submit that the interests” of plaintiff AT&T “are in line with the interests of all the defendants except the ZBA,” he said. “The ZBA is the only defendant that may not support a resolution to this action that would allow AT&T to build its tower.” The ZBA “is represented by the same attorneys for the other defendants who want AT&T to build its tower,” he said. “This conflicted representation will pave the way for a settlement among the existing parties that will be against the interests of the village residents,” and that’s their biggest worry, said Campanelli. He cited 11 local wireless infrastructure cases in the Eastern District alone that were settled “without any input from the resident property owners who stood to bear the greatest adverse impact from the proposed installations.” AT&T and village officials told the court this week that they oppose McRory’s motion to intervene (see 2210310037). Before filing their motion to intervene, the 30 residents sought consent from all existing parties in the case, “but were unsuccessful in getting consent from all of them.”

U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni for Massachusetts in Springfield granted AT&T’s unopposed motion for a 30-day extension of all deadlines in its infrastructure lawsuit against the town of Heath, said an electronic order Monday (docket 3:21-cv-30106). AT&T reached a tentative settlement agreement with the town and 10 of its resident intervenors but needed more time to draft and finalize the documents for the court’s approval (see 2210310031). AT&T sued in October 2021 to contest Heath’s allegedly unlawful denial of an application to construct and install a 180-foot-tall monopole cell tower to remedy a significant gap in wireless service coverage in the community. The judge ordered the parties to exchange “initial disclosures” by Nov. 30.

U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby for Maryland signed a scheduling order Wednesday granting the joint Oct. 18 motion of plaintiff Olcan III Properties and defendant American Tower for Olcan III to file an amended complaint and American Tower to file a responsive pleading under an extended deadline. The amended complaint is now due Nov. 15 and American Tower’s answer is due Dec. 6, said the order (docket 22-cv-02456). Olcan III filed suit Aug. 8 in Baltimore Circuit Court alleging American Tower breached an easement contract for the placement of a rooftop cell tower at a building it owns in Baltimore when it caused “significant damage” to the property, forcing Olcan III to incur repair costs and to lose rents and profits. American Tower removed the complaint Sept. 27 to the Baltimore federal court.