This case was last updated from San Mateo County Superior Courts on 06/19/2022 at 22:44:44 (UTC).

NEWPATH NETWORKS LLC ETAL VS TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

Case Summary

On 12/26/2012 NEWPATH NETWORKS LLC ETAL filed an Other - Writ Of Mandamus lawsuit against TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH. This case was filed in San Mateo County Superior Courts, Southern Branch Hall of Justice and Records located in San Mateo, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Scott, Joseph C, Bergeron, Joseph E, Grandsaert, John L, Swope, V. Raymond, Buchwald, Gerald J, Cretan, Clifford V, Dylina, Steven L, V. RAYMOND SWOPE, SWOPE, JOSEPH C. SCOTT, JOSEPH E. BERGERON, J. BERGERON, GERALD J. BUCHWALD, CLIFFORD V. CRETAN and STEVEN L. DYLINA. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *****8695

  • Filing Date:

    12/26/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Writ Of Mandamus

  • County, State:

    San Mateo, California

Judge Details

Judges

Scott, Joseph C

Bergeron, Joseph E

Grandsaert, John L

Swope, V. Raymond

Buchwald, Gerald J

Cretan, Clifford V

Dylina, Steven L

V. RAYMOND SWOPE

SWOPE

JOSEPH C. SCOTT

JOSEPH E. BERGERON

J. BERGERON

GERALD J. BUCHWALD

CLIFFORD V. CRETAN

STEVEN L. DYLINA

 

Party Details

Cross Defendants and Petitioners

NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC

CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC.

VERIZON WIRELESS, LLC

VERIZON WIRELESS

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP

VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ITS GOVERNING BODY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff, Cross Defendant and Petitioner Attorneys

SHONAFELT, MICHAEL W

HUDAK, MARK D.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT (8) Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

Case Management Statement.

STATEMENT Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

Notice.

NOTICE (3) Comment N2: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORD AFTER HRG DENYING PLTF'S MOT TO SEVER WRIT OF MANDATE FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited.

ANSWER Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL FILED BY NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL W SHONAFELT

Opposition.

OPPOSITION (2) Comment OPP: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

Conversion Action.

FILING (3) Comment REP2: REPLY TO BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF'S IN SUPPORT OF MOT. FOR JDGMNT ON THE PLEADINGS FILED BY CROWN CASTLE NG WEST INC., NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC

Amended.

AMENDED FILING (3) Comment AMEN: AMENDED OTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCS BY X-DEF-GTE MOBILENET OF CAL. DBA VERIZON FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

Document.

FILING (4) Comment FILED: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA L.P., D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, FILED.

Conversion Hearing.

CMC NOTICE Judicial Officer Scott Joseph C Comment CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Request for Dismissal of - WITHOUT prejudice in its entirety.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL WITHOUT P Comment REQDC: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY FILED.

Request for Dismissal of - WITH prejudice in its entirety.

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION OF NEWPATH NETWORKS LLC WITH PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY FILED. Comment REQDC1: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION OF NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC WITH PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY FILED.

Conversion Action.

PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE Comment PNTWO: PRINT COMBINED MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND JURY TRIAL OR COURT TRIAL NOTICE

Document.

ANSWER BY CROSS-DEFENDANT GTE MOBILNET OF CA TO 1ST AMND XCM OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH FILED. Comment FILED: ANSWER BY CROSS-DEFENDANT GTE MOBILNET OF CA TO 1ST AMND XCM OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, FILED.

Answer (Unlimited).

(S) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL FILED BY NEWPATH NET Comment ANS: (S) ANSWER TO 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL FILED BY NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC, CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC., REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL W SHONAFELT

Case Management Statement.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL.

Document.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA L.P., DBA VERIZON WIRELESS, FILED. Comment FILED: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT OF GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA, L.P., DBA VERIZON WIRELESS, FILED.

Case Management Statement.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY NEWPATH NETWORKS LLC, CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC.. Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC, CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC..

Case Management Statement.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF H Comment CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL, CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH.

118 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/01/2014
  • DocketConversion Hearing.; Additional Info: Comment COURT TRIAL (LONG CAUSE). TIME ESTIMATE: 2. DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/01/2014
  • DocketCourt Trial.; Additional Info: Hearing Time 9:00 AM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: PJ COURT TRIAL (LONG CAUSE). TIME ESTIMATE: 2. DAYS 00:00 HOURS.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/20/2014
  • DocketConversion Hearing.; Additional Info: Comment MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/20/2014
  • DocketSettlement Conference.; Additional Info: Hearing Time 01:30 PM Cancel Reason Vacated Comment Dept: 7 MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2014
  • DispositionDisposition: Judgment; Judgment Type: Dismissal - Without Prejudice; Party; Name; VERIZON WIRELESS (VAW) LLC; Comment: 0002 CROSS-COMPLAINT; Party; Name; CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ITS GOVERNING BODY; Comment: 0002 CROSS-COMPLAINT; Party; Name; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; Comment: 0002 CROSS-COMPLAINT; Party; Name; CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC.; Comment: 0002 CROSS-COMPLAINT; Party; Name; NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC; Comment: 0002 CROSS-COMPLAINT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2014
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment CDIS: CASE DISMISSED.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2014
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment CODWO: 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL AND ALL PARTIES DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/18/2014
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal of - WITHOUT prejudice in its entirety.; Additional Info: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL WITHOUT P Comment REQDC: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF 1ST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN ITS ENTIRETY FILED.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2014
  • DispositionDisposition: Judgment; Judgment Type: Dismissal - With Prejudice; Party; Name; CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH ITS GOVERNING BODY; Comment: 0001 PETITION; Party; Name; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; Comment: 0001 PETITION; Party; Name; CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC.; Comment: 0001 PETITION; Party; Name; NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC; Comment: 0001 PETITION

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/13/2014
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment CODWP: PETITION OF NEWPATH NETWORKS LLC AND ALL PARTIES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
240 More Docket Entries
  • 12/26/2012
  • DocketCause Of Action.; Additional Info: Action Petition File Date 12/26/2012

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 004 Comment Volume 004

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 003 Comment Volume 003

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 002 Comment Volume 002

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCase File Digitization Public.; Additional Info: Case File Digitization Public Volume 001 Comment Volume 001

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • DocketNew Filed Case.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketSummons Issued / Filed.; Additional Info: 30 DAY SUMMONS ISSUED AND FILED. Comment S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS, ISSUED AND FILED.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet.; Additional Info: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED Comment CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • DocketConversion Minute.; Additional Info: Comment *FEE: 121226-0461-CK 194/ 435.00 PAYMT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/26/2012
  • View Court Documents
  • DocketPetition.; Additional Info: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FILED Comment PWM: PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FILED

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Complaint Information

NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP

MICHAEL W. SHONAFELT, CBN 186853 ERIC J. ROLLINS, CBN 265417

895 Dove Street, 5th Floor

Newport Beach, California 92660

(949) 854-7000; (949) 854-7099 (Fax) F I L E D

Attorneys for Petitioners, Plaintiffs, and Cross- SAN MATEQ COUNTY Defendants Newpath Networks, LL.C and Crown Castle NG West, Inc. MAY 2 0 4 i

8y ./ y d iy

\DEF RERC YV SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

“‘NEWPATH NETWORKS; LLC; CROWN—-|—CASE NO::-—- - -~ CIV 518695 - - ——--—--m-|— CASTLE NG WEST INC,, JUDGE: Steven L. Dylina

AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS NEWPATH

NETWORKS, LLC AND CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a Municipal Corporation; CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, its Governing Body; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,

FILE DATE: December 26, 2012 Respondents and TRIAL DATE SET: No Date Set

Defendants.

TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a Municipal Corporation; CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, its governing body,

Cross-Complainants, VS. | NEWPATH NETWORKS, LLC; CROWN CASTLE NG WEST INC:; and Verizon Wireless, LLC, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Defendants. Petitioners, plaintiffs, and cross-defendants Newpath Networks, LL.C, and Crown Castle NG West, Inc. (collectively, “Crown™), for themselves and no others, hereby respond to the first amended cross-complaint of the Town of Hillsborough as follows:

Petitioners, plaintiffs, and cross-defendants Newpath Networks, LL.C, and Crown Castle NG West, Inc. (collectively, “Crown™), for themselves and no others, hereby respond to the first amended cross-complaint of the Town of Hillsborough as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL

1. B-y virtue of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Crown denies each and e\;'ery allegation contained in the first amended cross-complaint, and each purported cause of action contained therein.

" FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to State a Cause of Action) -

2. The first-amended cross-complaint (ails to state facts sufficient to constitute a

" Cduse of actionupon which relief can be granted against-Crownr————- =+ ~—=—— - w0

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Statutes of Limitation) | 3. The first amended croés-complaint and the allegations contained therein are barred or diminished, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unclean Hands) 4, Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts and omissions, is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands from recovering any relief herein against Crown.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Estoppel) 5. By conduct, representations, and omissions, cross-complainant is equitably estopped to assert any claim for relief against Crown respecting matters which are the subject of the first amended cross-complaint.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Waiver) 6. Cross-complainant, through its conduct, acts, and omissions, has waived its cause of action and any recovery against Crown.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Laches)

7. Cross-complainant’s claims against Crown are barred or diminished by the doctrine of laches.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

| (Nonjoinder)

8. The purported claims contained in the first amended cross-complaint require, for their complete adjudication, the joining of additional, necessary, or indispensable parties, without whom the purported claims and cause of action cannot be fully, finally, and completed resolved.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

"~~~ -~ - - —(Another-Action Pending) ——™- - -—rriioo—

9. Cross-complainant’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent they are precluded by the doctrine of abatement and/or the presence of another action pending on the same subject.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Misjoinder)

10. Crown is improperly joined as a defendant in this action. As a result, there isa defect or misjoinder of parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 430.16, subdivision (d). Accordingly, this action should not be permitted to proceed against Crown.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Capacity to Sue)

11. The capacity of cross-complainant to sue is not shown by the first amended cross- complaint and is open to question and uncertainty. To the extent cross-complainant is lacking capacity to sue, it cannot proceed in this action.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Standing)

12. Cross-complainant lacks standing to seek the relief against Crown that it pursues

in its first amended cross-complaint.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Compliance with Applicable Laws) 13. Cross-complainant’s claims are barred in whole or in part by reason of Crown’s compliance with all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Public Policy) 14, Cross-complainant’s claims are barred by public policy.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Performance by Law)

15. Each claimed act or failure to act alleged by cross-complainant was performed or not performed under the express authority of statute-or-pursuant-to-other-requirements-of law;-and- | — - —-- therefore, the first amended cross-complaint against Crown is barred.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(State Preemption)

16. All claims in the first amended cross-complaint are preempted by Public Utilities Code sections 7901 and 7901.1.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Federal Preemption)

17. All claims in the first amended cross-complaint are barred by the relevant provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, including, but not limited to, 47 U.S.C. §§ 253 and 332. |

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Not Justiciable) 18. The first amended cross-complaint seeks an advisory opinion and therefore is not justiciable. |

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mootness) 19. The first amended cross-complaint is barred because it is moot.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Unstated Additional Defenses)

20. Crown presently has insufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belicf as to whether there exist additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses. Crown reserves herein the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery indicates that such a defense would be appropriate.

PRAYER |

WHEREFORE, Crown respectfully prays for entry of judgment in its favor and against

cross-complainant as follows:

1. That the first amended cross-complaint be dismissed; = — 27—~ That cross-complainant take nothing-by-reason-of-the-first amended cross- ~— - - | ———~ complaint; 3. For a declaration that Chapter 15.32 and Ordinance 704, as defined in the first

amended cross-complaint, are preempted by state and federal law;

4, For a declaration that Chapter 15.32 and Ordinance 704, as defined in the first amended cross-complaint, do not apply to Crown;

S. For a declaration that Crown is not obligated to comply with Chapter 15.32 and Ordinance 704, as defined in the first amended cross-complaint, due to Crown’s status as a telephone corporation under the Public Utilities Code;

0. For a declaration that Crown is not obligated to comply with Chapter 15.32 and Ordinance 704, as defined in the first amended cross-complaint, since Crown’s equipment will be located in the public right-of-way;

7. For the costs of suit incurred herein; and [/

7. For the costs of suit incurred herein; and [/ 8. For any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

8. For any other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: May 30 ,2014 NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP

Eric J. Rollins

Attorneys for Petitioners, Plaintiffs, and Cross-Defendants Newpath Networks, LLC and Crown Castle NG West, Inc.

- —— - — et et . e, et o = ki, At i . ot et — - -— -—— - e —— o e ey . . - W =—a— - p———— = e Snty & e e m o m——— - —— = -

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NEWPATH NETOWORKS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH A MUNICIPAL CORP is a litigant

Latest cases where CROWN CASTLE NG WEST LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where VERIZON WIRELESS LLC is a litigant