AT&T failed to satisfy the requirements of the Walla Walla, Washington, municipal code, as explained in the city hearing examiner's Nov. 2 decision denying AT&T’s cell tower application, said the city’s answer Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland to AT&T’s first amended complaint (see 2312040002). The municipal code’s requirements are imposed “on a competitively neutral basis,” in compliance with the Telecommunications Act, and are 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,” said the Walla Walla’s answer. AT&T also failed to “fully and adequately respond” to multiple requests made by the city for additional information on at least three different dates, and so AT&T’s claims “are barred by estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands,” it said. It asked that AT&T’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Employees of contractor Allen Family Enterprises damaged AT&T’s underground telecommunications cables and equipment while excavating in December 2022 at a site in Conway, Arkansas, alleged AT&T’s complaint Friday (docket 23CV-24-417) in Faulkner County, Arkansas, Circuit Court. Before excavating, Allen “failed and refused to comply” with the notice requirements set forth in Section 14-271-101 of the Arkansas code, said the complaint. That constituted negligence, for which Allen should be held liable, it said. Allen excavated with mechanized equipment or power-driven tools and equipment “in and around prohibited areas” where AT&T’s lines and property were located, it said. Allen was also negligent in that it failed to keep “a proper lookout” for AT&T’s property, it said. It also failed to take “reasonable steps” to protect AT&T property during its excavating activities, and failed to exercise “ordinary care” during those activities, it said. Allen caused AT&T to incur $17,628.25 for the costs of repairing its telecommunications cable and equipment, it said. AT&T’s telecommunications also have been weakened, “now being more prone to future problems and outages” due to Allen’s negligence, it said.

AT&T and defendant Walla Walla, Washington, agree to the dismissal with prejudice, and without costs or fees to any party, of count II of AT&T’s Dec. 1 complaint challenging the city’s denial of AT&T’s application to build a 65-foot cell tower (see 2312040002), said their stipulated motion Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-05162) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. Count II alleges that the city's denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record, as required by Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act.

AT&T or agents it hired began installing utility lines and manholes sometime in April 2022 on property owned by Edward and Carolyn Schimmel, “without any permission to do so, and continued doing so after notified that they did not have permission to do so,” alleged the Schimmels’ complaint Monday (docket 2024CV0154) in the Court of Common Pleas in Wood County, Ohio. Demand has been made on AT&T to remove the installations, but AT&T has “refused and essentially ignored” those demands, said the complaint. When AT&T or its agents “wrongfully entered” the Northwood, Ohio, property on numerous occasions in April 2022, the Schimmels and city told them that no utility easement existed where they were working, said the complaint. The carrier or its agents caused damage to the land and to crops that were planted at that time, plus the loss of future crops and income, it said. AT&T has refused to reimburse the couple for that damage, it said. The company’s actions have taken a portion of the Schimmels’ property “out of farm production” and “essentially created a utility easement” on the property without compensating the couple, it said. As a result of those wrongful actions, the Schimmels have suffered monetary damages for legal fees, court costs, loss of equity and income and loss of use of the property in an amount exceeding $100,000, it said.

U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta ordered Roswell, Georgia, to "proceed expeditiously" in its search for a replacement expert witness after its original expert resigned abruptly from the case days before he was to testify at this week’s evidentiary hearing, said Totenberg’s signed order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). Ronald Graiff had been Roswell’s expert witness on the case against T-Mobile since 2017, but he told the city Friday that his role was causing him too much stress and taking a toll on his physical and mental health, said a declaration Monday from the city’s counsel. Searching for a replacement expert as soon as possible “in Georgia and elsewhere” was necessary to comply with the “relevant disclosure rules,” and to allow plaintiff T-Mobile “a sufficient opportunity to depose the replacement,” said the order. The judge ruled in March that the FCC’s September 2018 small-cells declaratory ruling preempting aspects of local and municipal cell tower permit reviews is a “substantive rule” that shouldn’t be applied retroactively to Roswell’s 2017 denial of T-Mobile’s application to build a tower in a residential neighborhood (see 2303210036).

A court report and recommendation (R&R) that Crown Castle should be granted summary judgment against Oyster Bay, New York, on its claims that the town unlawfully blocked its applications to install 23 small wireless facilities in public rights of way (see 2401220028) was “well-reasoned,” said Crown Castle’s response Friday (docket 2:21-cv-06305) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. Each of U.S. Magistrate Judge Wicks’ “overarching” determinations, “has clear support in the undisputed evidentiary record in this case,” it said. Each, on its own, warrants an award of summary judgment in Crown Castle’s favor, it said. The town’s written denial of the company’s applications isn’t supported by substantial evidence on record, in violation of Section 332 of the Telecommunications Act, it said. Its denial effectively prohibited provision of wireless services, also in violation of Section 332, Crown Castle said. Oyster Bay’s denial also materially inhibits the ability of telecommunications providers like Crown Castle to compete in a fair and balanced legal and regulatory environment, and therefore has the effect of prohibiting the provisions of telecommunications services, in violation of the TCA’s Section 253, the response said. The town’s objections to Wicks’ R&R “should be rejected as without merit,” said Crown Castle. “They completely ignore the undisputed material facts of this case, are based upon an incorrect standard of law,” and are contrary to well-established 2nd Circuit precedent, it said. The objections “are nothing more than a smokescreen” to hide the fact that the undisputed facts and unambiguous case law set forth in the R&R “conclusively demonstrate” that Wicks’ conclusions “are well-grounded and have clear support in the record and in the law,” it said. Crown Castle asks that the court adopt the R&R in its entirety and grant summary judgment in the company's favor on all counts, it said.

Crown Castle admits only that it leased land in rural Tennessee from plaintiff James Gragg for “a period of years” to build and operate a cell tower, but denies the plaintiff’s remaining allegations that it refuses to surrender the premises and remove its structures with the lease’s April 2022 expiration (see 2402090061), said the company’s answer Friday (docket 2:24-cv-02087) in U.S. District Court for Western Tennessee in Memphis. Gragg has failed to state a claim against Crown Castle for which relief may be granted, and his claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said its answer. In the event that Gragg is entitled to damages, which the company denies, his compensation is capped by Section 29-15-122 of the Tennessee code, “which limits a tenant’s liability to the rent owed at the time of suit and any rent accrued while the tenant remains in possession,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni for Massachusetts in Springfield granted the Feb. 5 joint motion of Verizon and Southwick, Massachusetts, to postpone the April 22 bench trial on count II of Verizon’s complaint that Southwick’s denial of AT&T’s cell tower application constituted an effective prohibition of wireless services under the Telecommunications Act, said the judge’s electronic order Thursday (docket 3:21-cv-10414). The judge previously granted summary judgment in Southwick’s favor on count I of Verizon’s complaint that the town’s denial wasn’t supported by substantial evidence in the written record (see 2402060050). In light of the parties' "representations" that they have entered into discussions about identifying and considering potential alternative locations for AT&T’s cell tower that weren’t available before Southwick denied the company’s application, the court “will continue the trial and temporarily stay this matter pending settlement negotiations,” said the judge’s order. The parties will file a joint status report by June 14, updating the court on the status of the parties' negotiations “and the likelihood that a trial will be necessary,” it said. The parties may request entry of a settlement order of dismissal “that provides a period of time during which either party may reopen the action if their settlement negotiations fail,” it said.

AT&T’s Dec. 18 complaint challenging the “unlawful denial” by Jennings, Louisiana, of AT&T’s application to build an 80-foot wireless telecommunications facility within the city’s jurisdiction (see 2312190003) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, said the city’s answer Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01769) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles. All the city’s actions or inactions with respect to AT&T “were carried out in the good faith performance of official duties by elected or appointed officers and employees” of Jennings, and under “a good faith and reasonable belief that such actions were lawful and constitutional,” it said. The city is therefore “immune from the purported claims and causes of actions” set forth in AT&T’s complaint, it said. Jennings affirmatively pleads the statute of limitations to the extent that AT&T’s complaint wasn’t timely filed under the Telecommunications Act, it said. The city also denies violating any provisions of the TCA’s Section 332, it said. That’s because the statute “defers to state and local governments concerning placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,” and because all the city’s actions “were consistent with the provisions of that statute,” Jennings said.

Contrary to the AT&T’s Jan. 18 objections to a magistrate judge’s Dec. 19 report recommending dismissal of AT&T’s cell tower complaint against Muttontown, New York, and its various boards (see 2401220003), the report “accurately states the applicable law and applies it to the undisputed facts at bar,” said the village’s reply Friday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip. Based on the well-established doctrines of justiciable controversy and ripeness, the report correctly recommends dismissal of AT&T’s action under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said the Muttontown’s reply. The report also correctly determined that AT&T’s complaint failed to properly plead plausible “shot clock” violation, prohibition and substantial evidence claims against the village in its July 2022 denial of AT&T’s variance application, it said. Contrary to the company's “repeated obfuscations,” it can’t deny that, under its consent, the shot clock expired in August 2022, said the reply. The village’s denial decision was adopted before the expiration of the shot clock, it said. The complaint and the documentary evidence annexed to it “irrefutably demonstrate” that the shot clock wasn’t violated, it said. As the magistrate judge’s report correctly noted, AT&T’s complaint “contains no allegation” of the filing of an application with the village itself, said the reply. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has made clear that a municipal board “is without authority to approve a project where the applicable municipal ordinance conditions such approval on the approval of another board,” it said.