↓
 

Ninth Circuit Case 19-70144 et al. — Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC 18-133

ZERO5G Posted on by

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)

Link To Full Article @ S4WT

 

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

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:

  1. Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits;
  2. Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
  3. Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
  4. 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

  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

  1. City of San Jose, California
  2. City of Arcadia, California
  3. City of Bellevue, Washington
  4. City of Burien, Washington
  5. City of Burlingame, California
  6. Culver City, California
  7. Town of Fairfax, California
  8. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  9. City of Issaquah, Washington
  10. City of Kirkland, Washington
  11. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  12. City of Los Angeles, California
  13. County of Los Angeles, California
  14. City of Monterey, California
  15. City of Ontario, California
  16. City of Piedmont, California
  17. City of Portland, Oregon
  18. City of San Jacinto, California
  19. City of Shafter, California
  20. City of Yuma, Arizona
  21. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  22. National League of Cities
  23. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  24. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  25. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  26. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  27. City of Emeryville, California
  28. Michigan Municipal League
  29. Town of Hillsborough, California
  30. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  31. City of Medina, Washington
  32. City of Papillion, Nebraska, City of Plano, Texas
  33. City of Rockville, Maryland
  34. City of San Bruno, California
  35. City of Santa Monica, California
  36. City of Sugarland, Texas
  37. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  38. City of Austin, Texas
  39. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
  40. County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
  41. City of Atlanta, Georgia
  42. City of Boston, Massachusetts
  43. City of Chicago Illinois
  44. Clark County, Nevada
  45. City of College Park, Maryland
  46. City of Dallas, Texas
  47. District of Columbia
  48. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
  49. Howard County, Maryland
  50. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
  51. Montgomery County, Maryland
  52. City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  53. City of Omaha, Nebraska
  54. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  55. City of Rye, New York
  56. City of Scarsdale, New York
  57. City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
  58. City of Takoma Park, Maryland
  59. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues
  60. Meridian Township, Michigan
  61. Bloomfield Township, Michigan
  62. Michigan Townships Association
  63. 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

  1. City of Bowie, Maryland
  2. City of Eugene, Oregon
  3. City of Huntsville, Alabama
  4. City of Westminster, Maryland
  5. County of Marin, California
  6. City of Arcadia, California
  7. Culver City, California
  8. City of Bellevue, California
  9. City of Burien, Washington
  10. City of Burlingame, Washington
  11. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  12. City of Issaquah, Washington
  13. City of Kirkland, Washington
  14. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  15. City of Los Angeles, California
  16. City of Monterey, California
  17. City of Ontario, California
  18. City of Piedmont, California
  19. City of Portland, Oregon
  20. City of San Jacinto, California
  21. City of San Jose, California
  22. City of Shafter, California
  23. City of Yuma, Arizona
  24. County of Los Angeles, California
  25. Town of Fairfax, California
  26. City of New York

Case No. 19-70124

No. 19-70124 Petitioner

  • Verizon Communications, Inc.,

No. 19-70124 Intervenors

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, California
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, Washington_xxx
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. City of New York
  21. Town of Fairfax, California

Case No. 19-70125

No. 19-70125 Petitioner

  • Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.,

No. 19-70125 Intervenors

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, California
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, Washington
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. Town of Fairfax, California
  21. City of New York

Case No. 19-70136

No. 19-70136 Petitioners

  1. City of Seattle, Washington
  2. City of Tacoma, Washington
  3. King County, Washington
  4. League of Oregon Cities
  5. League of California Cities
  6. League of Arizona Cities And Towns

No. 19-70136 Intervenors

  1. City of Bakersfield, California
  2. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  3. City of Lacey, Washington
  4. City of Olympia, Washington
  5. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  6. City of Tumwater, Washington
  7. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  8. Rainier Communications Commission
  9. County of Thurston, Washington
  10. City of Arcadia, California
  11. City of Bellevue, Washington
  12. City of Burien, Washington
  13. City of Burlingame, California
  14. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  15. City of Issaquah, Washington
  16. City of Kirkland, Washington
  17. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  18. City of Los Angeles, California
  19. City of Monterey, California
  20. City of Ontario, California
  21. City of Piedmont, California
  22. City of Portland, Oregon
  23. City of San Jacinto, California
  24. City of San Jose, California
  25. City of Shafter, California
  26. City of Yuma, Arizona
  27. County of Los Angeles, California
  28. Culver City, California
  29. Town of Fairfax, California
  30. City of New York

Case No. 19-70144

Case No. 19-70144 Petitioners

  1. City of San Jose, California
  2. City of Arcadia, California
  3. City of Bellevue, Washington
  4. City of Burien, Washington
  5. City of Burlingame, California
  6. Culver City, California
  7. Town of Fairfax, California
  8. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  9. City of Issaquah, Washington
  10. City of Kirkland, Washington
  11. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  12. City of Los Angeles, California
  13. County of Los Angeles, California
  14. City of Monterey, California
  15. City of Ontario, California
  16. City of Piedmont, California
  17. City of Portland, Oregon
  18. City of San Jacinto, California
  19. City of Shafter, California
  20. City of Yuma, Arizona

Case No. 19-70144 Intervenors

  1. CTIA—The Wireless Association
  2. Competitive Carriers Association
  3. Sprint Corporation
  4. Verizon Communications, Inc.
  5. City of New York
  6. 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

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, Washington
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, California
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. Town of Fairfax, California
  21. 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

  1. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  2. City And County of San Francisco, California
  3. Michigan Municipal League
  4. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  5. National League of Cities
  6. City of Bakersfield, California
  7. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  8. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  9. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  10. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  11. City of Emeryville, California
  12. City of Fresno, California
  13. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  14. City of Lacey, Washington
  15. City of Medina, Washington
  16. City of Olympia, Washington
  17. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  18. City of Plano, Texas
  19. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  20. City of Rockville, Maryland
  21. City of San Bruno, California
  22. City of Santa Monica, California
  23. City of Sugarland, Texas
  24. City of Tumwater, Washington
  25. City of Westminster, Maryland
  26. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  27. Contra Costa County, California
  28. County of Marin, California
  29. International City/County Management Association
  30. International Municipal Lawyers Association
  31. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  32. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  33. Rainier Communications Commission
  34. Thurston County, Washington
  35. Town of Corte Madera, California
  36. Town of Hillsborough, California
  37. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  38. City of Arcadia, California
  39. City of Bellevue, Washington
  40. City of Burien, Washington
  41. City of Burlingame, California
  42. City of Culver City, California
  43. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  44. City of Issaquah, Washington
  45. City of Kirkland, Washington
  46. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  47. City of Los Angeles, California
  48. City of Monterey, California
  49. City of Ontario, California
  50. City of Piedmont, California
  51. City of Portland, Oregon
  52. City of San Jacinto, California
  53. City of San Jose, California
  54. City of Shafter, California
  55. City of Yuma, Arizona
  56. County of Los Angeles, California
  57. Town of Fairfax, California

Case No. 19-70339

Case No. 19-70339 Petitioner

  • American Public Power Association

Case No. 19-70339 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City of Tumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland

Case No. 19-70341

Case No. 19-70341 Petitioners

  1. City of Austin, Texas
  2. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
  3. County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
  4. City of Atlanta, Georgia
  5. City of Boston, Massachusetts
  6. City of Chicago, Illinois
  7. Clark County, Nevada
  8. City of College Park, Maryland
  9. City of Dallas, Texas
  10. District of Columbia
  11. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
  12. Howard County, Maryland
  13. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
  14. Montgomery County, Maryland
  15. City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  16. City of Omaha, Nebraska
  17. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  18. City of Rye, New York
  19. City of Scarsdale, New York
  20. City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
  21. City of Takoma Park, Maryland
  22. Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues
  23. Meridian Township, Michigan
  24. Bloomfield Township, Michigan
  25. Michigan Townships Association
  26. Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way

Case No. 19-70341 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City of Tumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland

Case No. 19-70344

Case No. 19-70344 Petitioners

  1. City of Eugene, Oregon
  2. City of Huntsville, Alabama
  3. City of Bowie, Maryland

Case No. 19-70344 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City Otumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland

 

 

 

Thank you To PMG @ S4WT for sharing this case with us @ Z5G!

Comments are closed.

↑