U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip ordered Oyster Bay to issue Crown Castle within 30 days "all approvals and permits required" for the installation and operation of its small cells in the town's public rights of way "without the imposition of any further requirements or fees," said her signed judgment Thursday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). She ordered the town to pay Crown Castle nearly $258,000, including interest. The judge granted summary judgment March 13 for Crown Castle on all three of its Telecommunications Act claims against the town (see 2403140018).

Counsel for all parties in Verizon’s small-cells dispute with Monmouth County, New Jersey, agree that “it may be beneficial” to schedule an initial settlement conference, with clients in attendance, they wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Brendan Day for New Jersey in Trenton Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). They asked the judge to schedule the settlement conference for the morning of April 19, “which is the only common date of availability for all of the parties,” said their letter. Verizon alleges that the county’s denial of its application to install nine small cells in the public rights of way violated Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act because the denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record (see 2309080048). The judge’s March 7 memorandum order granted seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents' motion to permissively intervene as defendants in the dispute (see 2403080039).

Denco Construction damaged Crown Castle’s underground cable in July 2019 while excavating with mechanized equipment at a location in Cape Coral, Florida, alleged Crown Castle’s complaint Monday (docket 362024CC002279A001CH) in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in Lee County, Florida. As a result of the defendant's actions, Crown Castle “sustained disturbance to its rights of use or servitude,” and damage to and loss of the cable, which has resulted in actual damages of slightly more than $23,200, said the complaint. Denco’s actions “constituted an intentional interference with Crown Castle’s disturbance of its rights without justification,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta granted the motion of Roswell, Georgia, letting it substitute Ben Levitan as its expert witness in the city’s cell tower fight against T-Mobile, said the judge's signed order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). Ronald Graiff resigned unexpectedly March 2 as the Roswell expert, citing stress from the assignment (see 2403110001). T-Mobile vigorously opposed the city’s substitution motion, arguing that it was in effect a last-minute strategy for replacing Graiff because it realized his work was inadequate. But Totenberg found there was no credible evidence indicating “bad faith or deviousness” on the city’s part to use Levitan as a substitute expert, the judge’s order said. The city’s counsel promptly notified the court of Graiff's issue and “expeditiously moved to identify a new expert,” it said. The need for technical issues in this matter to be “properly presented” to the court “is obvious,” it added. The court found Roswell's motion for expert substitution "reasonable and supported by good cause,” said the order. In addition, the court ruled that granting its substitution motion “is necessary to prevent the harsh prejudice” that would result if the city was deprived use of a substitute expert, it said. Over T-Mobile’s strong objections, the court won’t confine the city’s new expert to giving expert testimony as a “virtual ventriloquist” for Graiff, it said. The court will require that Levitan “produce an expert report and be subject to a deposition, to ensure that T-Mobile has an adequate opportunity to prepare for the evidentiary hearing” in June and to be sure it’s not prejudiced by the substitution of counsel, said the order. On T-Mobile’s request that the city reimburse its attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with the work and depositions associated with the switch in experts, the court “reserves review of the merits of this request to after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing,” it said.

Bed-and-breakfast owners Barbara and Everett Knudson, newly granted intervenor-defendant status in support of Walla Walla, Washington, in its cell tower fight against AT&T (see 2403080031), want the U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland to declare that the carrier isn’t entitled to approval of its proposed wireless communication facility, said the Knudsons’ answer Monday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) to AT&T’s complaint. The company failed to satisfy Walla Walla municipal code requirements, as explained in the city’s hearing examiner's Nov. 2 decision denying AT&T’s cell tower application, said their answer. Those requirements are imposed on a “competitively neutral basis,” consistent with Section 254 of the Communications Act, it said. They’re necessary “to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers,” it said. The court should dismiss AT&T’s complaint with prejudice, it said.

An AT&T contractor, Star Construction, penetrated an 8-inch terracotta sewer line with a 4-inch casing holding AT&T’s underground telecom cables, causing the Wetumpka (Alabama) Water Works and Sewer Board to incur $125,000 in expenses, alleged the board’s March 5 complaint, removed Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00182) to U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. The board “continues to incur expenses” associated with the weekly flushing of the line, and “additional significant expenses will be incurred in the ultimate resolution of this situation,” said the complaint. The “most promising resolution” would be for the board to abandon the sewer line and let AT&T’s cables remain where they are, but “significant expense” will be required to install a new sewer line to “bypass the troubled area,” it said. It’s the board’s position that it didn’t cause the problem, and that AT&T and its contractor should be required to reimburse the board for the expenses incurred in resolving the issue, said the complaint. AT&T denies liability “for the acts or omissions of an independent contractor,” said AT&T’s answer. AT&T alleges that the board "bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt before any award of damages can be made," it said.

Sant Construction caused nearly $13,000 in damage to AT&T’s underground telecom cables and facilities in April 2022 when excavating negligently at a site in McAllen, Texas, alleged the carrier’s complaint Tuesday (docket C-1314-24-D) in Hidalgo County Judicial District Court. The contractor “failed to take reasonable care” in protecting the existing buried cables, conduits and telecommunication facilities from damage by failing to determine the location of those facilities through “safe and acceptable means,” alleged the complaint. Sant violated the Texas utilities code by failing to properly notify “a recognized state notification center” no later than 48 hours before the excavation was to begin, it said. AT&T “is clearly a member of the class the statute was designed to protect, and the violation of this statute directly and proximately caused the damages forming the basis of this lawsuit,” it said.

After U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip granted summary judgment March 13 for Crown Castle on all three of its Telecommunications Act claims against the town of Oyster Bay, New York (see 2403140018), it’s the parties’ “joint position” that the only remaining issue in the litigation is the entry of a judgment against the town for the relief requested by Crown Castle, they wrote the judge in a status report Monday (docket 2:21-cv-06305). The judgment should order Oyster Bay, within 30 days, to issue Crown Castle “all building permits and any other approvals and permits required” for the installation and operation of its 23 small cells in the town's public rights of way, “without the imposition of any further requirements or fees,” said the report. Oyster Bay also should reimburse Crown Castle for $189,950 in excess fees, plus 9% interest, also within 30 days, it said.

U.S. District Judge Mark Norris for Western Tennessee in Memphis scheduled an April 2025 jury trial on plaintiff James Gragg’s allegations that Crown Castle has refused to vacate property he leased to the company to build a cell tower since the lease expired in April 2022 (see 2402090061), said a clerk’s notice of setting Friday (docket 2:24-cv-02087). Gragg seeks possession of his property, the restoration of his land and compensatory damages. Crown Castle admits only that it leased land in rural Tennessee from Gragg for “a period of years” to build and operate a cell tower, but denies Gragg’s remaining allegations that it refuses to surrender the premises and remove its structures (see 2403040008).

Altice hired Excell Communications in 2021 to perform telecommunication construction services in New York, and Excell subcontracted the work to Igtech, which is still owed $1 million for the project, alleged Igtech’s breach of contract complaint Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00317) in U.S. District Court for Northern Alabama in Birmingham. Igtech “timely performed” all its obligations under the contract, including connecting cables and wires from pole to pole, running them underground and splicing them in accordance with blueprints that Excell provided, said the complaint. It also performed wiring work on buildings owned by the New York City Housing Authority under Excell’s instructions and blueprints, it said. Igtech submitted a dozen separate invoices to Excell “itemizing the services performed and the amounts due,” said the complaint. Excell has failed to pay those invoices “despite repeated demands,” it said. As the owner of properties that have been improved through Igtech’s services, Altice and the NYCHA also “have been unjustly enriched,” and neither has compensated Igtech for that enrichment, it said.