Third Circuit Revives T-Mobile Lawsuit Over Blocked Cell Tower
A three-judge panel of the appeals court Thursday reversed a Delaware district court ruling, which held that T-Mobile Northeast's complaint was unripe because it was filed before the Wilmington Zoning Board of Adjustment issued a written decision blocking the company's request to build a cell tower on top of the Claymore Senior Center.
January 11, 2019 at 04:45 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
In a decision that set new precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has revived T-Mobile's challenge to a zoning decision that barred the company from building a cell tower in Wilmington, ruling that T-Mobile's attempt to correct a prematurely filed lawsuit was enough to allow the case to proceed in Delaware federal court.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court Thursday reversed a Delaware district court ruling, which held that T-Mobile Northeast's complaint was unripe because it was filed before the Wilmington Zoning Board of Adjustment issued a written decision blocking the company's request to build a cell tower on top of the Claymore Senior Center.
T-Mobile had alleged in its November 2016 complaint that the city had a “pattern and practice” of withholding written decisions in land-use denials until the city is sued. The ZBA later issued a formal, written decision, but T-Mobile waited nearly one year to supplement its original complaint.
U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in March granted summary judgment in favor of the city, ruling that the original complaint was unripe and that the supplemental complaint could not fix its flaws.
On appeal, Wilmington argued that the remedied complaint could not relate back to the original filing because the problems had already stripped the court of jurisdiction over the case.
Third Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan on Thursday said that blocking a plaintiff from supplementing its complaint would create an “endless feedback loop” that would bar T-Mobile's claims from ever being heard.
“If a supplemental complaint cannot cure an unripe complaint, an endless feedback loop would be created whereby the ripeness problem could never be overcome, even though, as here, the dispute later became obviously ripe,” Jordan wrote in a 43-page opinion.
Jordan said the timing of the of the ZBA's denial had nothing to do with the court's jurisdiction, and he remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Jordan was joined in the ruling by Judges Richard L. Nygaard and Thomas I. Vanaskie. Vanaskie retired from the appeals court Jan. 1, but still took part in the argument and conference in the case.
An attorney for T-Mobile declined to comment Friday. Counsel for the city did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment on the ruling.
T-Mobile is represented by T. Scott Thompson and Leslie G. Moylan of Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, D.C., and Jennifer C. Wasson and Alan R. Silverstein of Potter Anderson & Corroon in Wilmington.
The city is represented by Joseph Van Eaton, Gail Karish and Rebecca Andrews of Best, Best & Krieger in Washington, D.C., and attorneys from Wilmington's law department.
The case is captioned T-Mobile Northeast v. City of Wilmington.
|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 AllAttorneys, Professors Share Support for Chancellor Following Musk's Online Attacks
4 minute readJurden Announces 2025 Retirement, Capping 24 Years on Superior Court
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 2Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 4Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 5‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
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