Miami Lawyers Power up for $20 Million FPL, AT&T Contract Battle
Florida Power and Light Co. has accused AT&T of breach of contract, one count of trespass and one count of abandonment in a federal lawsuit seeking more than $20 million for alleged missed payments.
July 24, 2019 at 01:11 PM
4 minute read
Sparks are flying between energy giant Florida Power & Light Co. and telecommunications titan AT&T Florida—and not the good kind.
In a breach of contract lawsuit transferred to federal court Monday, FPL claims AT&T Florida owes nearly $20 million for using 420,000 of its utility poles in 2018 and 2019. Both companies own thousands of Florida utility poles that supply electricity, telephone and internet services to customers.
Under an agreement that's been in place since 1975, each party has allowed the other to use its poles for distributing services in overlapping territories, which include Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties. By doing that, they've avoided duplicating efforts by having to build and maintain extra utility poles.
But the lawsuit claims AT&T Florida—or BellSouth Telecommunications LLC, as it's formally known—owes $9.2 million from 2017 and $10.5 million from 2018. With interest, FPL says that's a debt of more than $20 million. AT&T Florida allegedly hasn't explained why it missed the payments and has continued to use its poles without authorization, according to court pleadings.
Plaintiff FPL is based in Palm Beach County and is the largest energy company in the U.S., based on the amount of electricity it produces and sells, while Texas-based AT&T is one of the biggest telecommunications companies in the world.
It appears to be the first contractual hiccup the duo has had in 44 years, based on documents attached to the complaint.
AT&T and its counsel, Harvey W. Gurland of Duane Morris in Miami, did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
The complaint, which originated in Palm Beach Circuit Court, claims the plaintiff took away AT&T Florida's right to attach equipment to FPL's utility poles in March over the late payment, but it continued to use them anyway.
FPL accuses the defendant of trespassing on its property and claims it can't remove the attachments because they require the expertise of AT&T technicians. Even if it could remove them, FPL says that would cause irreparable harm to the defendant's customers.
The lawsuit asks the court to order AT&T Florida to detach from the poles, arguing that if it doesn't, FPL would suffer damages from irreparable harm to its relationship with customers and government officials, who've already asked that the abandoned poles be removed.
“injunctive relief from this court is the only way to avoid a multiplicity of suits, which will otherwise occur if AT&T Florida does not remove its attachments,” the complaint said.
Under the agreement, FPL abandoned 5,230 of its poles to AT&T after it refused to detach from them. The defendant denies responsibility for the poles, but FPL asked the court to recognize them as AT&T's.
Miami attorney Alvin B. Davis of Squire Patton Boggs is handling the plaintiff's case with Charles B. Bennett Jr. and Joseph Ianno Jr. of FPL in Juno Beach. They deferred comment to FPL spokesperson Bill Orlove, who claimed AT&T had tried to reduce its bill and sent only a partial payment.
“Contract agreements that have stood for more than 40 years don't suddenly become null and void just because AT&T has decided it would like to pay less,” Orlove said. “FPL is fully prepared to defend our customers' interests and we'll continue to pay our bills, in full, and work every day to ensure that Florida's energy grid remains the strongest, most resilient in America—unlike AT&T who prefers to breach contracts and play games with FPL customers' money.”
U.S. District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg is presiding over the case.
Read the complaint:
|Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readThe Inflation Reduction Act: Evaluating Its Impact on Renewable Energy Producers and Analyzing Emerging Needs
Caribbean Energy Needs Are on the Rise, and Plenty of That Work is Headed For U.S. Law Firms
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
- 2How I Made Office Managing Partner: 'Be a Lawyer First, Foremost and Always,' Says Matthew McLaughlin of Venable
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 23
- 4Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 5The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250