Ninth Circuit Case 19-70144 et al. — Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC 18-133
Opposition to FCC & 5G
2019-0307-Joint-Opposition-to-FCC-Motion-to-Hold-in-Abeyance:
is a motion written/approved by Joseph Van Eaton, Partner at BBK and the nation’s premier Telecom attorney, representing Cities’ interests.
- Ninth Circuit Case(s) 19-70144 et al. (cases opened on Jan 15, 2019; a consolidation of nine separate cases) — including Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC-18-133
Latest Relevant Documents of the Case(s)
- 2019-0307-Joint-Opposition-to-FCC-Motion-to-Hold-in-Abeyance
- 2018-1114-GWTCA-et-al-Small-Cell-Petition-For-Reconsideration
Link To Video
Tenth Circuit Motions for Stay of FCC 18-133, the Wireless and Wireline Infrastructure Order
Updated on Jan 9, 2018 @ 1:40 pm ET
- 2018-1217-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-San-Jose-et-al-Motion-for-Stay-and-Appendix
- 2019-0101-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-Wireless-Industry-Opposition-to-Motion-For-Stay
- 2019-0102-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-FCC-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Stay
- 2019-0108-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-Joint-Reply-to-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Stay.
- Link to Bloomberg Law: “Challenge to FCC’s 5G Network Order Moves to Ninth Circuit”
- Link to Appellate Case: 18-9568 Document: 010110109238 Date Filed: 01/10/2019
- Link to Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110109277 Date Filed: 01/10/2019
January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9568
Before McHUGH and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.
Petitioners are local governments and other entities with similar interests who seek a stay of an FCC order that is scheduled to take effect in part on Monday, January 14, 2019. The Supreme Court has explained that
When deciding whether to exercise our discretion to grant a stay, we consider the following four traditional stay factors:
- Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits;
- Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
- Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
- Where the public interest lies.
Id . at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id.
After reviewing all of the parties’ submissions, we conclude petitioners have failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion, we deny petitioners’ motion for stay.
January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9563
Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order entitled Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the “September Order”). FCC 18-133, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,867 (Oct. 15, 2018). The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation designated this circuit as the court in which to consolidate the various petitions for review of the September Order.
These matters are before us on a Motion to Transfer, filed by the petitioners in City of San Jose, et al. v. F.C.C., et al. , No. 18-9568. The San Jose Petitioners seek to transfer these matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5), to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where a first-in -time petition for review of an order issued by the FCC on August 3, 2018 is pending. Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, 83 Fed. Reg. 46,812 (Sep. 14, 2018) (the “August Order”). The FCC and the United States filed a response opposing transfer and supplemental authority. Sprint Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., CTIA – The Wireless Association®, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the Competitive Carriers Association also filed a response opposing transfer. Finally, the San Jose Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion.
After careful consideration, we conclude that the FCC’s August Order and its September Order are the “same order” for purposes of § 2112(a). Accordingly, the motion to transfer is granted and these matters are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1
- Four petitions for review of the September Order are presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See AT&T Services, Inc., v. FCC , No. 18-1294 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018); American Public Power Ass’n v. FCC , No. 18-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 15, 2018); City of Austin v. FCC , No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018); City of Eugene v. FCC , No. 18-1330 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 12, 2018). As these petitions are not before us, this order does not address them.
The Current Case Numbers and Line Up
A. The Following Parties Are Represented by Best Best & Krieger LLP
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- County of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska, City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- City of Austin, Texas
- City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
- County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
- City of Atlanta, Georgia
- City of Boston, Massachusetts
- City of Chicago Illinois
- Clark County, Nevada
- City of College Park, Maryland
- City of Dallas, Texas
- District of Columbia
- City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
- Howard County, Maryland
- City of Lincoln, Nebraska
- Montgomery County, Maryland
- City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
- City of Omaha, Nebraska
- City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- City of Rye, New York
- City of Scarsdale, New York
- City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
- City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues
- Meridian Township, Michigan
- Bloomfield Township, Michigan
- Michigan Townships Association
- Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way
B. National Association of Telecommunication Officers is represented by separate counsel
C. Advisors and City of New York is represented by separate counsel
Case No. 19-70123
Case No. 19-70123 Petitioner
- Sprint Corporation
Case No. 19-70123 Intervenors
- City of Bowie, Maryland
- City of Eugene, Oregon
- City of Huntsville, Alabama
- City of Westminster, Maryland
- County of Marin, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- Culver City, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70124
No. 19-70124 Petitioner
- Verizon Communications, Inc.,
No. 19-70124 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington_xxx
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- City of New York
- Town of Fairfax, California
Case No. 19-70125
No. 19-70125 Petitioner
- Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.,
No. 19-70125 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70136
No. 19-70136 Petitioners
- City of Seattle, Washington
- City of Tacoma, Washington
- King County, Washington
- League of Oregon Cities
- League of California Cities
- League of Arizona Cities And Towns
No. 19-70136 Intervenors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- County of Thurston, Washington
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70144
Case No. 19-70144 Petitioners
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- County of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
Case No. 19-70144 Intervenors
- CTIA—The Wireless Association
- Competitive Carriers Association
- Sprint Corporation
- Verizon Communications, Inc.
- City of New York
- Wireless Infrastructure Association
Case No. 19-70145
Case No. 19-70145 Petitioner
- City And County of San Francisco,
Case No. 19-70146
Case No. 19-70146 Petitioner
- City of Huntington Beach
Case No. 19-70146 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70147
Case No. 19-70147 Petitioner
- Montgomery County, Maryland
Case No. 19-70326
Case No. 19-70326 Petitioner
- AT&T Services, Inc.
Case No. 19-70326 Intervenors
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Bakersfield, California
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- City of Emeryville, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- City of Westminster, Maryland
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Contra Costa County, California
- County of Marin, California
- International City/County Management Association
- International Municipal Lawyers Association
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- Rainier Communications Commission
- Thurston County, Washington
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Culver City, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
Case No. 19-70339
Case No. 19-70339 Petitioner
- American Public Power Association
Case No. 19-70339 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland
Case No. 19-70341
Case No. 19-70341 Petitioners
- City of Austin, Texas
- City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
- County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
- City of Atlanta, Georgia
- City of Boston, Massachusetts
- City of Chicago, Illinois
- Clark County, Nevada
- City of College Park, Maryland
- City of Dallas, Texas
- District of Columbia
- City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
- Howard County, Maryland
- City of Lincoln, Nebraska
- Montgomery County, Maryland
- City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
- City of Omaha, Nebraska
- City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- City of Rye, New York
- City of Scarsdale, New York
- City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
- City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues
- Meridian Township, Michigan
- Bloomfield Township, Michigan
- Michigan Townships Association
- Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way
Case No. 19-70341 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland
Case No. 19-70344
Case No. 19-70344 Petitioners
- City of Eugene, Oregon
- City of Huntsville, Alabama
- City of Bowie, Maryland
Case No. 19-70344 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City Otumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland
Thank you To PMG @ S4WT for sharing this case with us @ Z5G!