U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter for Southern New York signed an order of reference Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) handing over T-Mobile’s complaint against three Bronx building landlords to U.S. Magistrate Judge James Cott for “general pretrial” proceedings, including discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions and settlement negotiations. The landlords from whom T-Mobile is leasing rooftop space are rebuffing the carrier’s demands 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).

AT&T joins with the village of Muttontown, New York, and its various boards in opposing the Oct. 18 motion of resident Russell McRory to intervene in the infrastructure fight between AT&T and the village, company attorneys wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Lee Dunst for Eastern New York in Central Islip Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524). Lawyers for the village wrote Dunst Friday to say McRory “is not entitled to intervention as of right.” Dunst ordered all parties to file “formal responses” to the motion to intervene by Dec. 16, and scheduled oral argument on the motion for Jan. 18 at 2 p.m. EST. AT&T’s Sept. 15 complaint alleges that Muttontown’s failure to approve its October 2021 application to build a “stealth” cell tower at the Village Hall obstructed the company’s ability to remedy a service gap in the community, in violation of the 1996 Telecom Act. McRory’s motion to intervene said his home “abuts the premises where the proposed cell tower would be located,” and residents like him “are not aligned” with the village board, which supports the cell tower, against the objections of the local zoning board of appeals (see 2210200034). McRory alleges AT&T conspired secretly with Muttontown officials to OK the cell tower -- allegations that AT&T denies as “categorically false” (see 2210210044).

AT&T reached a tentative agreement to settle its yearlong wireless infrastructure fight with the town of Heath, Massachusetts, and 10 of its residents who entered the case as intervenors, but the parties need a deadline extension to Nov. 28 to “draft, finalize, and execute a written agreement for judgment” to be filed with the court, said AT&T in an unopposed motion Saturday (docket 3:21-cv-30106) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Springfield. 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 with antennas and related ground equipment crucial to remedying a significant gap in wireless service coverage. AT&T asserted the denial was not based on substantial evidence andin violation of Section 332 of the Communications Act. The 10 intervenors, who entered the case Jan. 18, said the town planning board acted properly when it denied AT&T’s application, mostly on aesthetic grounds. The residents hastily hired lawyers and drafted court papers, they said, “to protect their interests” when they learned that AT&T and Heath were seeking judicial approval of a settlement that would permit the cell tower project to go forward.

Verizon’s opening brief deadline at the 9th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court was shifted to Nov. 30 from Nov. 2, and the answering brief due date from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, was moved to Dec. 30 from Dec. 2 (see 2210070046), said a mediation order Wednesday (docket 22-16153). 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. Verizon is appealing the district court’s June 30 dismissal of its complaint and the granting of summary judgment in favor of the city.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that Nevada's Video Service Law (VSL) doesn't allow Reno to seek a private right of action as it tries to get video franchise fees from streaming services Netflix and Hulu. In the opinion (docket 21-16560), Judges Susan Graber, Michelle Friedland and Lucy Koh said they wouldn't address the parties' disagreement over the meaning of "video service provider" under VSL "because it is clear that Reno lacks a cause of action under both the VSL and the Declaratory Judgment Act." Oral argument was in September (see 2209190055).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai for the U.S. District Court for Oregon in Eugene expects in AT&T’s wireless infrastructure lawsuit against Lane County, Oregon, “to handle discovery disputes informally and discourages parties from filing motions to compel, which take extra time and resources to resolve,” said Kasubhai’s case management order Wednesday (docket 6:22-cv-01635). Should the parties be unable to resolve discovery disputes by email, Kasubhai “will schedule a telephonic hearing to discuss the matter,” it said. Lane County is in violation of the Telecommunications Act for denying for more than a year AT&T approval to construct a150-foot-tall cell tower, alleged AT&T’s complaint earlier this week (see 2210260009).

T-Mobile’s demands that three Bronx building landlords from which it leases rooftop space sign the New York Fire Department paperwork required for the carrier to access those rooftops and upgrade its wireless antenna facilities “will result in the taking of additional roof space” by T-Mobile, said the landlords in their answer Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-08369) to T-Mobile’s Sept. 30 complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Said T-Mobile’s complaint: “As a result of defendants' material breaches, T-Mobile requires a decree of specific performance and permanent injunction compelling each defendant to sign the required approval forms as requested and give T-Mobile their full cooperation.” Each lease stipulates that T-Mobile can use the rooftops "for the transmission and reception of radio communications signals" and for the construction, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, removal or replacement of antennas, microwave dishes and equipment shelters, said T-Mobile. But the landlords responded that T-Mobile was seeking “a modification of prior agreements,” that it wasn’t entitled to injunctive relief and that any harm that came to T-Mobile “was the result of the actions or inactions or culpable conduct of third parties.”

The 5th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court on Monday granted Pasadena, Texas, its deadline extension request to Nov. 9 to file briefing papers in its appeal of the Aug. 2 final judgment in which U.S. District Judge David Hittner for Southern Texas in Houston granted Crown Castle’s motion for summary judgment in its wireless infrastructure legal battle with the city. Pasadena’s 5th Circuit filing deadline previously was Wednesday (docket 22-20454). Hittner’s order (docket 4:20-cv-03369) also 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. Crown Castle’s September 2020 complaint alleged that 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 Pasadena because the spacing requirement eliminates the necessary node locations, alleged the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts issued an electronic order Monday (docket 1:22-cv-11551) granting in part the joint motion of Vertex Towers and the town of Hubbardston, Massachusetts, a deadline extension for the parties to file a joint proposed schedule. Vertex’s Sept. 21 complaint alleges the Hubbardston zoning board of appeal denial of its application for variances to permit the construction and operation of a multi-user lattice style wireless communication facility is in “direct violation” of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act partly because the decision “is not supported by substantial evidence in a written record.” The facility is needed to remedy “a significant gap in wireless coverage,” and the denial “materially inhibits the provision of wireless services, including the ability to introduce new services or otherwise improve the existing services,” alleged the complaint. The joint Vertex-Hubbardston motion had asked for a deadline extension to Dec. 9, but “without more information as to the reason for the delay,” Burroughs’ order extended the deadline only to Nov. 15.

East St. Louis, Illinois, appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a lower court's granting of a motion to dismiss a putative class-action complaint against defendant streaming services (see 2209230059), per an appeal notice filed Monday (docket 3:21-cv-00561) with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The city was suing the streamers for franchise fees it said they owed as video service providers.