GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership v. City of Berkeley
- Donna Ryu
- 4:20-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
In GTE Mobilnet v. City of Berkeley, Judge Ryu granted Verizon leave to amend and supplement its complaint and denied BRN’s dismissal motion as moot.
GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, may file its proposed amended and supplemental complaint; the City of Berkeley remains the defendant, and the Berryman Reservoir Neighbors’ motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
What happened
GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, sued the City of Berkeley under the Telecommunications Act over Berkeley’s denial of Verizon’s proposed cell-tower application. Verizon sought to add allegations about Berkeley’s later written denial and a claim that Berkeley took too long to act.
The intervening Berryman Reservoir Neighbors opposed the change. They argued that the new claim was too late, requested unavailable or unhelpful relief, would prejudice them, and resulted from delay or bad faith. Verizon argued that the new claim related back to its original complaint because both claims arose from the same underlying events.
The court rejected the neighbors’ objections and granted Verizon’s motion to amend and supplement its complaint. Judge Ryu also denied the neighbors’ motion to dismiss as moot.
The detailed version
- GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership v. City of Berkeley · No. 4:20-cv-05460
- Donna Ryu
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, sued the City of Berkeley under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Verizon alleged that Berkeley unlawfully denied its application to build, operate, and maintain an unoccupied personal wireless service facility consisting of six antennas and a generator. The proposed facility would include a 50-foot cell tower designed to resemble a pine tree.
Verizon’s original complaint asserted three claims: that Berkeley’s denial was not in writing; that the denial was not supported by substantial evidence; and that the denial effectively prohibited Verizon from providing personal wireless services. The Berryman Reservoir Neighbors intervened in the case. They are individuals who live near the proposed tower and participated in Berkeley’s review of the application.
Requested Amendment and Supplement
Verizon moved to file a proposed first amended and supplemental complaint. The proposed pleading added allegations that Berkeley issued a written denial on September 8, 2020, and replaced the original claim about the lack of a written denial with a claim that Berkeley failed to act within a reasonable period of time, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). Verizon alleged that the applicable deadline for Berkeley to take final action was July 10, 2020, but that Berkeley did not issue its written denial until September 8, 2020. The proposed pleading also added allegations supporting Verizon’s claim that the denial was not based on substantial evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Verizon could amend the complaint as a matter of course under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B) because Verizon filed its motion within 21 days after the neighbors served their motion to dismiss. The court rejected the neighbors’ argument that a proposed answer attached to an earlier motion to intervene counted as a responsive pleading. The court noted that neither the neighbors nor Berkeley had filed or served an answer or other responsive pleading.
The court separately considered supplementation under Rule 15(d), which permits a court to allow a pleading to add events occurring after the original pleading was filed. The neighbors argued that adding the failure-to-act claim would be futile because it was barred by the Telecommunications Act’s 30-day filing period. Verizon argued that the proposed pleading related back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c), meaning it would be treated as filed on the date of the original complaint for this purpose.
The court agreed with Verizon. Relying on the reasoning of a cited Third Circuit decision and Ninth Circuit authority, the court held that a supplemental pleading can relate back when it shares a common core of operative facts with the original pleading. The court found that the proposed pleading and original complaint relied on the same core facts and that the written denial certified or restated the earlier denial. The court therefore rejected the statute-of-limitations objection.
The neighbors also argued that the proposed failure-to-act claim was futile because the requested injunctive and declaratory relief was unavailable, unnecessary, or moot. The court explained that disputes about the proper form of relief did not establish that the claim itself was futile. It concluded that the neighbors had not shown that no set of facts under the proposed amendment could support a valid claim.
The court also rejected the neighbors’ prejudice argument. It found that the case was at an early stage, that the neighbors had notice of the relevant facts, and that the proposed amendments would not add appreciable complexity. The court further held that the need to defend a new claim and conduct related discovery, standing alone, was not undue prejudice. Finally, the court found no undue delay or bad faith and concluded that none of the relevant amendment factors weighed against allowing the proposed pleading.
Disposition
The court granted Verizon’s motion to amend and supplement the complaint. It ordered Verizon to electronically file the proposed first amended and supplemental complaint within five days of the order. The court denied the Berryman Reservoir Neighbors’ motion to dismiss the complaint as moot.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.