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.

The joint motion for a settlement between Crown Castle and the town of Riverhead, New York (see 2210200003), was granted, said a text order Thursday (docket 2:21-cv-00789) by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert for the Eastern District of New York. She ordered the case closed. Crown Castle sued the town in February 2021 over “unreasonable delays and unsupportable effective denials” of its applications to install a public utility wireless telecommunications facility in the village of Calverton, New York.

The allegations against AT&T in the motion to intervene in the carrier’s infrastructure complaint against the village of Muttontown, New York, “are categorically false and completely at odds with the facts in this case,” emailed an AT&T spokesperson Friday. “As we demonstrated during the public hearing on this matter, this proposed cell site is necessary to serve our customers, including first responders, in and around the Village of Muttontown.” Muttontown resident Russell McRory alleged in his motion that AT&T and village officials conspired secretly to get the 165-foot cell tower approved over the objections of the local zoning board of appeals, and that AT&T’s claims the tower was needed to remedy in coverage gap in the area were a “myth” (see 2210200034).

Crown Castle and the town of Riverhead, New York, filed settlement documents Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York that would end their long-running infrastructure battle over a proposed communications facility in the village of Calverton (see 2210070046). Crown Castle sued Riverhead in February 2021 when it was “unable to secure the long-term viability” of leases on property where it operated existing towers, necessitating the applications to install a new facility. The company accused the municipality of violating the Telecommunications Act by “unreasonably delaying and effectively denying” its permit applications “without substantial evidence contained in the written record.” The settlement terms include an agreement for a Crown Castle subsidiary, Global Signal Acquisitions IV, to buy the property it currently leases from the existing owner, Lizem Associates. All parties agree that consummating the sale of the property by Jan 31 is a “material condition” of the consent order that would terminate the litigation. Should the property sale not be completed by Jan. 31 if not extended by mutual agreement, the consent order “shall be deemed null and void,” and any plaintiff “may reinstate the litigation,” said the settlement documents.

The Telecommunication Act’s Section 332 requires that any local government decision to deny a request to deploy personal wireless services facilities be in writing and “supported by substantial evidence in a written record,” said a Verizon infrastructure complaint Thursday against Acushnet, Massachusetts, and its zoning board of appeals. But when the board recently denied a Verizon application for a special permit to build and operate a proposed wireless facility, it didn’t put its denial reasons in a written decision, “and it has not made available a written record disclosing its reasons for the denial,” said Verizon. Section 332 “also forbids local governments from effectively prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,” but the board’s denial of Verizon’s application “has just that effect” because it prevents Verizon “from filling an existing gap in coverage in Acushnet,” it said. Verizon is “entitled to an order” compelling the board to grant the “requested special permit,” it said. Acushnet town officials didn’t comment.

Real estate owner 1411 Division Street filed suit Tuesday to "recover" for T-Mobile’s “unlawful, forcible entry” onto its commercial property in Baltimore to service its telecom equipment, according to a trespass complaint (docket 1:22-cv-02690) in the U.S. District Court for Northern Maryland. The owner has been in the process of developing the property for affordable housing, it said. T-Mobile has a lease agreement with a third party, which itself has an easement agreement with the owner, that permits T-Mobile access to the telecom equipment on the property, it said. “But this easement agreement -- and necessarily, any lease with T-Mobile -- does not permit T-Mobile to occupy the property with trucks, workers, and a crane,” it said. “Nor does it permit T-Mobile to forcibly enter the property for the purpose of this unlawful occupation,” it said. “Yet that is exactly what T-Mobile did,” causing the owner “significant harm” by preventing it from fully developing its property, it said. The owner seeks unspecified money damages, plus a declaratory judgment that T-Mobile is not permitted to place its cranes, workers or vehicles on the property. T-Mobile didn’t comment Wednesday.

Settlement talks continue between Verizon and Saugerties, New York, in a wireless infrastructure dispute, the town said Tuesday at the U.S. District Court for Northern New York (docket 1:22-cv-107). The parties “have worked diligently in attempting to reach a resolution with respect to all claims which are the subject of the present lawsuit,” but “those discussions have not been completed.” Parties remain “optimistic” about finding agreement but seek a 90-day extension to the Oct. 31 dispositive motion deadline, said Saugerties. Across the U.S., the wireless industry continues to litigate against some localities while settling with others over denied applications (see 2210070046).

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals scheduled a Nov. 21 dial-in telephone assessment conference in AT&T’s appeal of a district court's Aug. 22 dismissal of its lawsuit against Los Altos, California, for rejecting its application to install small-cell wireless facilities under a 2019 local law (see 2210070046), said an order Monday (docket 22-16432). Under a revised briefing schedule, AT&T’s opening brief is now due Dec. 12, and Los Altos’ answering brief is due Jan. 23. AT&T’s optional reply brief is due within 21 days from the service date of the answer brief.

Muttontown, New York, resident Russell McRory filed a motion to intervene Monday in AT&T’s Sept. 15 complaint in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip alleging that the town’s failure to approve AT&T’s October 2021 application to build a “stealth” cell tower at the Village Hall “obstructed AT&T’s ability” to remedy a service gap in the community, in violation of the 1996 Telecom Act (see 2210090001). McRory’s 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 (ZBA), said his motion (docket 2:22-cv-05524). “This is not the typical cell tower case,” said the motion. “This is not the usual case where a wireless service provider has entered into a lease with a third-party property owner to construct a cell tower, the service provider makes an zoning application to the municipality, and the municipality and the residents rise as one to oppose the cell tower.” The Muttontown case “is more like Game of Thrones,” it said. Residents have “risen up” against the village board’s support for the cell tower, accusing it of concealing from public scrutiny, “and stonewalling the residents’ efforts to obtain information and to be heard in public hearings,” said the motion. The ZBA “denied the variances necessary to construct the cell tower and is therefore at odds” with the village board, it said. “The proposed tower would be right in the middle of a residential neighborhood,” it said. “At 165-feet high, the proposed tower would soar far above the natural tree line, which averages only 80-feet. In fact, it would be the tallest cell tower in the region, exceeding the heights of all other area towers, including those along the Long Island Railroad tracks and the Long Island Expressway.” The proposed cell tower “would have a severe and negative aesthetic impact on nearby residences and would severely and negatively impact property values of those residences,” it said. Muttontown faces an Oct. 26 deadline to answer the AT&T complaint.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James Wicks in Central Islip, New York, on Saturday granted a one-week deadline extension until Friday for Oyster Bay, New York, to complete discovery in its legal fight with Crown Castle. Most of the documents responsive to Crown Castle’s discovery requests “are not readily available and must be searched for and located” by town employees, said Oyster Bay in its unopposed motion for an extension (docket 2:21-cv-06305). Crown Castle sued the town in November, alleging the municipality and its officials obstructed its 23 applications for special permit approval to install 23 small wireless facilities within the public rights of way (ROW). Among Crown Castle’s allegations were that the town “imposed unreasonable, excessive, and prohibitive escrow charges and application fees,” and that it required a ROW use agreement with Crown Castle but refused to execute one.