Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP v. The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Middle District Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP v. The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors

Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP v. The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors

Plaintiff:	Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP
Defendant:	The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors
Case Number:	3:2017cv01521
Filed:	August 24, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Scranton Office
County:	Monroe
Presiding Judge:	Robert D. Mariani
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	47 U.S.C. § 332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
January 15, 2020	Filing 35 ORDERED THAT 1.Defendant Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirelesss substantial evidence claim under the Telecommunication s Act (TCA) (Count I) and state law zoning appeal under the Pennsylvanias Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 10101, et seq, (Count III). 2.Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirele sss Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED with respect to its substantial evidence claim under the TCA (Count I) and its state law zoning appeal under the MPC (Count III). 3.Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless s prohibition of service claim under the TCA (Count II) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.4.Judgment is hereby entered IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AGAINST DEFENDANT Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors on C ounts I and III.5.Defendant Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors SHALL GRANT Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirelesss Application for a conditional use related to the construction of the cell tower. In so doing, Defendant Smithfie ld Township Board of Supervisors, to the extent it desires, may attach reasonable conditions thereto regarding the cell towers lighting and controlled collapse as it indicated in its decision (see Doc. 27-23, at 20). 6.The case is REMANDED to the Smi thfield Township Board of Supervisors for the purposes of compliance with paragraph 5 of this Order.7.The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/15/20. (jam)
October 19, 2018	Filing 17 ORDER denying 8 Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and Complaint. See Order for full details. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/19/18 (jam)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 15, 2020

Filing 35 ORDERED THAT 1.Defendant Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirelesss substantial evidence claim under the Telecommunication s Act (TCA) (Count I) and state law zoning appeal under the Pennsylvanias Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 10101, et seq, (Count III). 2.Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirele sss Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED with respect to its substantial evidence claim under the TCA (Count I) and its state law zoning appeal under the MPC (Count III). 3.Plaintiff Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless s prohibition of service claim under the TCA (Count II) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.4.Judgment is hereby entered IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AGAINST DEFENDANT Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors on C ounts I and III.5.Defendant Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors SHALL GRANT Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP, d/b/a Verizon Wirelesss Application for a conditional use related to the construction of the cell tower. In so doing, Defendant Smithfie ld Township Board of Supervisors, to the extent it desires, may attach reasonable conditions thereto regarding the cell towers lighting and controlled collapse as it indicated in its decision (see Doc. 27-23, at 20). 6.The case is REMANDED to the Smi thfield Township Board of Supervisors for the purposes of compliance with paragraph 5 of this Order.7.The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 1/15/20. (jam)

October 19, 2018

Filing 17 ORDER denying 8 Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and Complaint. See Order for full details. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 10/19/18 (jam)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP v. The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Northeast Pennsylvania SMSA LP
Represented By:	Lars Henry Anderson
Represented By:	Richard M. Williams
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?