This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/03/2021 at 07:30:29 (UTC).

Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. Mayor & City Council of The Town of Ocean City

Case Summary

On December 1, 2021, Crown Castle Fiber LLC (“Crown Castle” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Christen Lauren B’anca Glen of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., filed a civil action against The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City (“Ocean City” or “Town”), seeking declaratory relief with costs and attorneys’ fees, for allegedly denying Plaintiff’s applications for the Three MH Nodes. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland with Judge Ellen L. Hollander presiding. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “This case involves Ocean City’s unlawful denial of Crown Castle’s applications to install telecommunications services equipment in the public rights of way on three new street light poles in an area of the Town zoned Mobile Home Residential (MH) (the “Three MH Nodes”). Crown Castle has attempted to work cooperatively with the Town for several years to obtain approval for Crown Castle to deploy necessary advanced telecommunications facilities to serve residential areas of the Town. Indeed, Crown Castle has identified a specific need for wireless service in the area around the proposed Three MH Nodes, and made numerous proposals and attempts to remedy that need. Although Crown Castle presented evidence of this need for service in the vicinity of the Three MH Nodes, the Town’s Mayor and City Council,1 responding to the general opposition to wireless technology expressed by vocal residents, denied the Three MH Nodes via Resolution adopted and effective November 1, 2021. Following its investigation and due diligence, Crown Castle had determined that there are no viable or less intrusive alternative structures or locations to locate its facilities to provide service in this area.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “The Town’s denial was not supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record and the denial effectively prohibits the provision of telecommunications services and personal wireless services in the vicinity of the proposed Three MH Nodes. The prohibition is in violation of, and preempted by, Sections 253 and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 253, and 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The fact that the denial is not supported by substantial evidence in the written record violates Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Ultimately, the Town’s denial is unreasonable and unjustified, and therefore the Town unreasonably withheld its approval in breach of the Right-of-Way Use Agreement (“Use Agreement”) between the parties.”

 

Plaintiff lists out three claims for relief. The first claim is for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) – Lack of Substantial Evidence. The second claim is for the violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 253, 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) – Effective Prohibition. The third claim is for breach of contract. 

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court for a declaration that the Town’s actions in refusing to approve Plaintiff’s Three MH Nodes effectively prohibits Plaintiff from providing telecommunications service and that this denial is not supported by substantial evidence in the written record. Further, Plaintiff requested the court for an order holding that the Town’s denial of the Three MH Nodes is in breach of the Use Agreement and order the Town to grant Plaintiff’s applications to install and operate the Three MH Nodes. Lastly, Plaintiff requested the court to award Plaintiff its costs, attorneys’ fees, other expenses incurred in this action and such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-03070

  • Filing Date:

    12/01/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Ellen L. Hollander

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Crown Castle Fiber LLC

Defendant

Mayor & City Council of The Town of Ocean City

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Christen Lauren B anca Glenn

Attorney at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

555 12Th Street Nwsuite 1100

Washington, DC 20004

 

Court Documents

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0416-9633420.), filed by Crown Castle Fiber LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4)(Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/01/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Summons

1 #3

Exhibit 1

1 #4

Exhibit 2

1 #5

Exhibit 3

1 #6

Exhibit 4

#2

(#2) Summons Issued 21 days as to Mayor & City Council of The Town of Ocean City.(bas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

#3

(#3) Local Rule 103.3 Disclosure Statement by Crown Castle Fiber LLC identifying Corporate Parent Crown Castle Fiber Holdings Corp., Corporate Parent Crown Castle Operating Company, Corporate Parent Crown Castle International Corp. for Crown Castle Fiber LLC.(Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

#4

(#4) NOTICE by Crown Castle Fiber LLC re #1 Complaint, Revised Civil Cover Sheet (Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE by Crown Castle Fiber LLC re #1 Complaint, Revised Civil Cover Sheet (Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Local Rule 103.3 Disclosure Statement by Crown Castle Fiber LLC identifying Corporate Parent Crown Castle Fiber Holdings Corp., Corporate Parent Crown Castle Operating Company, Corporate Parent Crown Castle International Corp. for Crown Castle Fiber LLC.(Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued 21 days as to Mayor & City Council of The Town of Ocean City.(bas, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0416-9633420.), filed by Crown Castle Fiber LLC. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4)(Glenn, Christen) (Entered: 12/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CROWN CASTLE FIBER LLC FKA WILCON OPERATIONS LLC is a litigant