Verizon, co-plaintiff Tarpon Towers and the defendant town of Saugerties, New York, agreed to settle their wireless infrastructure dispute “without the need for further litigation,” Verizon’s counsel wrote U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel Stewart for Northern New York in Albany in a letter Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-00107). Stewart granted the parties a seven-week deadline extension in June to accommodate their ongoing settlement talks (see 2306290004), Saugerties was alleged to have violated the Telecommunications Act by refusing to act on Verizon’s cell tower application before the expiration of the statute’s shot clock (see 2301190046). Under the settlement agreement, Verizon and Tarpon would withdraw their complaint without prejudice, conditioned on the town’s approval for the construction of a 125-foot tower, plus a 4-foot lightning rod, to accommodate the antennas of local emergency services.

The appellant city of Pasadena, Texas, seeks a 30-day extension to Sept. 18 to file motions for panel rehearing and en banc reconsideration of the Aug. 4 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the district court’s ruling in appellee Crown Castle’s favor (see 2308070002), said Pasadena’s motion Tuesday (docket 22-20454). Crown Castle is unopposed to a 14-day extension but opposes the 30-day extension requested in Pasadena’s motion, it said. Good cause exists for granting an extension, which isn’t sought for purposes of delay, “but so that the motions may be properly prepared,” said Pasadena. The 5th Circuit, like the district court, said Pasadena’s design manual unduly imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node network.

Bank of America has “set aside” $956.74 from R&Y Underground's account in compliance with the writ of garnishment served on the bank by Crown Castle, said BofA’s answer Tuesday (docket CACE22017496) in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida. BofA also wants Crown Castle to pay the bank $100 for its attorneys’ fees, said its answer. The amount the bank set aside is less than 2% of the $71,342 that Crown Castle is seeking to collect from R&Y in the unpaid final judgment it won in February (see 2308040028). Crown Castle’s negligence complaint alleged R&Y caused “actual damages” when excavating at an intersection in Miramar, Florida, and failed to use “accepted engineering and construction practices.”

The U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven should dismiss plaintiff Cellular Solutions’ complaint with prejudice in its entirety, said Verizon’s reply Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00659) in further support of its motion to dismiss. Cellular Solutions is a real estate firm that services rooftop leases with wireless telecommunications carriers. Its complaint alleges Verizon owes landlord Maxwell Realty more than $64,000 in municipal taxes for the space it’s leasing for wireless telecom equipment on a property in Bridgeport (see 2307240034). The complaint fails to state a claim for breach of contract, said Verizon’s reply. The plaintiff doesn’t allege it presented Verizon with any tax bills, as the lease requires “to trigger Verizon’s reimbursement obligations in the first instance,” it said. The plaintiff also doesn’t allege it provided Verizon with notice of default “and the opportunity to cure before filing suit,” as the lease also requires, it said. The plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are “unavailing,” it said.

Crown Castle seeks a writ of garnishment against Bank of America to collect the $71,342 final judgment it won against contractor R&Y Underground in February that still remains unpaid, said its motion Wednesday (docket CACE22017496) in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida. Crown Castle doesn’t think that R&Y has in its possession “visible property on which a levy could be made” sufficient to satisfy the judgment, plus 5% per annum interest, said the motion. Crown Castle’s negligence complaint alleged R&Y caused “actual damages” when excavating at an intersection in Miramar, Florida, and failed to use “accepted engineering and construction practices” (see 2302230030).

T-Motion seeks leave to supplement by Aug. 17 its cell tower complaint against Chestnut Ridge, New York, said its unopposed letter motion (docket 7:23-cv-05852), dated Monday and posted Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. T-Mobile alleged in a July 7 complaint the village violated the Telecommunications Act through its “unreasonable and unsupportable denials” of T-Mobile’s applications to build a 105-foot monopole cell tower (see 2307110008). After T-Mobile filed the lawsuit, the village’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA) issued a written resolution July 18 denying the cell tower application, and the local planning board did the same July 27, said the letter motion. As with Chestnut Ridge’s previous village board denial, T-Mobile contends the ZBA and planning board denials aren’t supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record, as the TCA requires, it said. T-Mobile now seeks to supplement its complaint, under Rule 15(d), by adding allegations or claims about those most recent denials, it said. The court should grant T-Mobile’s supplement request because none of Rule 15(d)’s exceptions “apply here,” it said. There “unquestionably is no undue delay” as the ZBA and planning board written resolutions were issued in the past two weeks, it said. T-Mobile’s motives also can’t “reasonably be called into question,” it said. T-Mobile “is simply seeking to exercise its rights under Rule 15(d) to assert facts and bring additional claims” arising out of Chestnut Ridge’s “actionable conduct that occurred subsequent” to the filing of the T-Mobile complaint. The request also should be granted because the village said it doesn’t oppose the request, it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai for Oregon in Eugene scheduled oral argument via videoconference Sept. 19 at 9 a.m. PDT on the June 1 motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff AT&T and defendant Lane County, Oregon, said the judge’s text-only entry Tuesday (docket 6:22-cv-01635). AT&T wants the court to say Lane County’s denial of its application for a wireless telecommunications facility “amounted to an effective prohibition” in violation of the Telecommunications Act, said its motion for summary judgment. AT&T also asks the court to order the county to approve the application and “any and all other authorizations necessary” for construction and operation of the proposed facility, it said. But AT&T “is barred from seeking redress” from the Oregon District Court because it failed to file an appeal of the county’s application denial with the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, said the county's motion. Lane County also denies it effectively prohibited AT&T from providing personal wireless services or telecommunications services, as AT&T alleges, said the motion.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough for Western Missouri in St. Joseph granted the joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of AT&T’s claims that the city of St. Joseph’s rejection of AT&T’s application for a conditional use permit to build a 175-foot cell tower was unlawful (see 2306140010), said the judge’s text-only order Tuesday (docket 5:23-cv-06023). The parties will bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, said the order.

Crown Castle’s statement during Jan. 7 oral argument before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the design manual of the city of Pasadena, Texas, “overtly” discriminates against small-cell technology (see 2306070069) “is simply incorrect,” the city wrote the 5th Circuit in a letter Monday (docket 22-20454). Crown Castle sued Pasadena in September 2020, asserting the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing requirement in the city’s manual because that manual significantly limits the locations where it may install small-cell nodes and node support poles in the public rights of way. Pasadena is appealing the district court finding that a “plain reading” of the manual shows the spacing requirement for small-node networks is “clearly more burdensome” than the requirements applicable to other users of the public ROWs. Many Texas cities “have adopted the design manual as promulgated," including regulating each city’s ROW, in a manner that’s “statutorily beyond” the FCC’s “exclusive jurisdiction,” said the city. All cell technology “is equally regulated under the design manual” and the prohibition on erecting new poles in the city’s ROW, “the issue in this case,” applies equally “regardless of the technology utilized,” said the city. Though Crown Castle admitted it’s not in the Pasadena case a small-cell provider, neither the state statute nor the design manual quoting Texas law “contain any language prohibiting any provider from erecting network poles to support small cell technology,” said the letter. That’s “provided” that such construction “complies with the design manual patterned on state law,” it said. It’s the “same obligation imposed on a traditional cellular provider,” it said.

Plaintiff Cellular Solutions asks the U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven to deny Verizon’s motion to dismiss its complaint (see 2306120032) because the lawsuit alleges “sufficient facts to support all required elements” of its claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unfair and deceptive acts and practices, said its opposition Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00659). Cellular Solutions is a real estate firm that services rooftop leases with wireless telecommunications carriers, and its complaint alleges Verizon owes landlord Maxwell Realty more than $64,000 in municipal taxes for the space it’s leasing for wireless telecom equipment on a property in Bridgeport. “When accepted as true, the allegations of the complaint are more than sufficient to clear the low hurdle required to survive a motion to dismiss,” said the opposition. The court “should draw reasonable factual inferences in favor of Cellular Solutions, not against it, as Verizon implicitly requests," it said.