City of Austin, Texas, et al v. FCC, et al
| CITY OF SCARSDALE, NEW YORK, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, CITY OF GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND, COUNTY OF ANNE ARUNDEL, MARYLAND, CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND, CITY OF MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROLINA, MICHIGAN COALITION TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, CITY OF RYE, NEW YORK, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, MICHIGAN TOWNSHIPS ASSOCIATION, CITY OF SEAT PLEASANT, MARYLAND, CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN, CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES, BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN, CITY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CITY OF LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA and CITY OF TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION |
| CITY OF MEDINA, WASHINGTON, CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA, CITY OF TUMWATER, WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF MARIN, CALIFORNIA, TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS, CITY OF EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND, CITY OF SUGARLAND, TEXAS, RAINIER COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, California, LEAGUE OF NEBRASKA MUNICIPALITIES, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CITY OF LA VISTA, NEBRASKA, CITY OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, TOWN OF YARROW POINT, WASHINGTON, CITY OF ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, CITY OF PAPILLION, NEBRASKA, CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA, TOWN OF CORTE MADERA, CALIFORNIA, CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, CITY OF WESTMINISTER, MARYLAND, CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA, CITY OF OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON, CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, California, THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS and CITY OF SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA |
| 19-70341 |
| February 8, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): A panel of this court referred to the Appellate Commissioner two separate consolidated petitions for review, No. 18-72689 (lead appeal) and 19-70123 (lead appeal), to conduct an appeal case management conference pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 33-1 advisory committees note (b). On April 18, 2019 at 1 pm Pacific Time in Courtroom Five at the James R. Browning United States Courthouse, 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1526, Appellate Commissioner Peter L. Shaw will conduct a case management conference with counsel addressing scheduling, briefing, related agency proceedings, and other matters. See Fed. R. App. P. 33; 9th Cir. R. 33-1; 9th Cir. R. 33-1 advisory committees note (b). Counsel for the parties shall consult with their clients and with opposing counsel to propose at the case conference a schedule for briefing these petitions for review. Counsel for the parties shall also consult with their clients and co-counsel and, if feasible, designate one or more counsel to represent the interests of other parties or co-counsel at the case conference. (Appellate Commissioner) [11245013] [18-72689, 19-70490, 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344] (DL) [Entered: 03/28/2019 10:31 AM] |
| Filing 14 Filed order (RICHARD C. TALLMAN and MARY H. MURGUIA) Respondent Federal Communications Commissions motion to consolidate petition Nos. 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, and 19-70147 with petition Nos. 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344 is granted (Docket Entry No. [ # 11206729-2 ] in 19-70123). These petitions are consolidated. The above consolidated petitions shall be assigned to the panel assigned to decide the merits of petition Nos. 18-72689 and 19-70490. The motion for a case management conference is granted (Docket Entry No. [ # 11167166-5 ] in 19-70123). We refer these consolidated petitions, and consolidated petition Nos. 18-72689 and 19-70490, to the courts special master, Appellate Commissioner Peter L. Shaw, to conduct a case management conference with the parties. The special master shall consider any issues he deems appropriate to manage the petitions effectively, including but not limited to the development of a briefing plan for the above-listed fourteen petitions. See Fed. R. App. P. 48; 9th Cir. R. 33-1, Note(b). The case management conference will be scheduled by separate order of the special master. Respondent FCCs opposed motion to hold these petitions in abeyance and defer filing the administrative records is granted in part (Docket Entry No. [ # 11206729-2 ] in 19-70123). Proceedings in these consolidated petitions other than the case management conference are stayed pending the case management conference. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court following the case management conference. [11235213] [19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344]--[Edited 03/20/2019 by BY][COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF ATtached, resent NDA,--[Edited 03/20/2019 by BY] (WL) [Entered: 03/20/2019 10:04 AM] |
| Filing 13 Filed (ECF) Respondent FCC reply to response (motion to consolidate cases, motion to stay appellate proceedings). Date of service: 03/14/2019. [11228624] [19-70341] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected reply. 3/19/2019 by TYL] (Noveck, Scott) [Entered: 03/14/2019 05:31 PM] |
| Filing 12 Filed (ECF) Intervenors City of Coconut Creek, Florida, City of Lacey, Washington, City of Olympia, Washington, City of Tumwater, Washington, Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance, Rainier Communications Commission, Thurston County, Washington and Town of Yarrow Point, Washington response to motion ([ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing), [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to consolidate cases, [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to stay appellate proceedings). Date of service: 03/07/2019. [11220529] [19-70341] (Fellman, Kenneth) [Entered: 03/07/2019 11:00 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed (ECF) Petitioners Bloomfield Township, Michigan, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, City of Atlanta, Georgia, City of Austin, Texas, City of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Chicago, Illinois, City of College Park, Maryland, City of Dallas, Texas, City of Gaithersburg, Maryland, City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 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, Clark County, Nevada, County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, District of Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, Meridian Township, Michigan, Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, Michigan Townships Association, Montgomery County, Maryland, Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues and Intervenors City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, City of Baltimore, Maryland, City of Brookhaven, Georgia, City of Dubuque, Iowa, City of Emeryville, 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, Michigan Municipal League, National League of Cities, Town of Hillsborough, California and Town of Ocean City, Maryland response to motion ([ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing), [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to consolidate cases, [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to stay appellate proceedings). Date of service: 03/07/2019. [11219893] [19-70341]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect correct filing type. 03/08/2019 by RY] (Van Eaton, Joseph) [Entered: 03/07/2019 02:07 PM] |
| Filing 10 Filed (ECF) Intervenors City and County of San Francisco, City of Westminister, Maryland, Contra Costa County, California, County of Marin, California and Town of Corte Madera, California response opposing motion ([ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing), [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to consolidate cases, [ # 8 ] Motion (ECF Filing) motion to stay appellate proceedings). Date of service: 03/07/2019. [11219634] [19-70341] (Lay, Tillman) [Entered: 03/07/2019 12:33 PM] |
| Filing 9 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is NOT SELECTED for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Counsel may contact circuit mediator to discuss services available through the court's mediation program, to request a settlement assessment conf, or to request a stay of the appeal for settlement purposes. Also, upon agreement of the parties, the brfing sch can be modified or vacated to facilitate settlement discussions. Csl are requested to send copies of this order to their clients. Info regarding the mediation program may be found at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation. [11208874] (BS) [Entered: 02/26/2019 05:45 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Respondent FCC Motion to consolidate cases 19-70123, 19-70124, 19-70125, 19-70136, 19-70144, 19-70145, 19-70146, 19-70147, 19-70148, 19-70326, 19-70339, 19-70341, 19-70344, Motion to stay appellate proceedings. Date of service: 02/25/2019. [11206767] [19-70341] (Noveck, Scott) [Entered: 02/25/2019 03:40 PM] |
| Filing 7 Entered appearance of Intervenor City of Westminister, Maryland. [11193850] (BY) [Entered: 02/15/2019 01:44 PM] |
| Filing 6 Entered appearance of Intervenors NATOA, City of Bakersfield, 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, County of Marin, California, Contra Costa County, California and Town of Corte Madera, California. [11193810] (BY) [Entered: 02/15/2019 01:43 PM] |
| Filing 5 Entered appearance of 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 and League of Nebraska Municipalities. [11192626] (BY) [Entered: 02/15/2019 01:15 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Petitioners Bloomfield Township, Michigan, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, City of Atlanta, Georgia, City of Austin, Texas, City of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Chicago, Illinois, City of College Park, Maryland, City of Dallas, Texas, City of Gaithersburg, Maryland, City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 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, Clark County, Nevada, County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, District of Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, Meridian Township, Michigan, Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, Michigan Townships Association, Montgomery County, Maryland and Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues Correspondence: regarding two matters with respect to docketing. Date of service: 02/13/2019 [11189476] [19-70341] (Van Eaton, Joseph) [Entered: 02/13/2019 03:46 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 02/13/2019. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[11188899] (AD) [Entered: 02/13/2019 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Petitioners Bloomfield Township, Michigan, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, City of Atlanta, Georgia, City of Austin, Texas, City of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Chicago, Illinois, City of College Park, Maryland, City of Dallas, Texas, City of Gaithersburg, Maryland, City of Lincoln, Nebraska, 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, Clark County, Nevada, County of Anne Arundel, Maryland, District of Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, Meridian Township, Michigan, Michigan Townships Association, Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-Way, Montgomery County, Maryland and Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 02/13/2019. [11188881] [19-70341] (Van Eaton, Joseph) [Entered: 02/13/2019 12:35 PM] |
| Filing 1 FILED (Transferred) PETITION FOR REVIEW. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED RESPONDENTS OF FILING. SEND MQ: Yes. Mediation Questionnaire due on 02/13/2019. Petitioner brief due 04/29/2019 for Bloomfield Township, Michigan et al. Respondent brief due 05/28/2019 for Federal Communications Commission and United States of America. Petitioner's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. (Transferred from USCA-Dist of Columbia case #18-1326 via 2/5/19 order) [11183871] (HC) [Entered: 02/08/2019 10:43 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
