New York SMSA Limited Partnership v. The Town of Bedford

Background

New York SMSA Limited Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, sued the Town of Bedford, its Town Board, its Planning Board, and the Town’s Building Inspector. Verizon alleged that the defendants violated Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, by denying applications for a special permit and site-plan approval to construct a wireless telecommunications facility.

Verizon proposed a 115-foot monopole at 91 Hickory Lane and later a 150-foot monopole at 68 Stone Hill Road. The Town denied both applications. Residents near the two proposed sites—the Hickory Lane Intervenors and the Stone Hill Intervenors—asked to participate in the lawsuit as parties. They alternatively sought permission to file amicus curiae briefs, meaning briefs submitted by nonparties seeking to assist the court.

Intervention as of Right

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) allows intervention as of right when the motion is timely, the proposed intervenor has an interest related to the lawsuit, resolving the case could impair that interest, and the existing parties do not adequately represent it. The court held that the residents failed to satisfy the fourth requirement.

The residents did not claim that the Town had colluded, failed to act, or acted incompetently. Instead, they argued that the Hickory Lane and Stone Hill residents had competing property interests and that the Town therefore could not adequately protect both groups. The court rejected that argument because the Town and the residents all opposed placing the facility at either proposed site. The court also ruled that the possibility of a settlement affecting one group of residents differently from another did not, by itself, show inadequate representation. Because the residents failed to establish inadequate representation, the court did not address the other requirements for intervention as of right.

Permissive Intervention

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), a court may allow intervention when the proposed intervenor has a claim or defense sharing a common legal or factual question with the main action. The court also must consider whether intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the original parties’ rights.

The court denied permissive intervention. It again found that the residents’ interests were aligned with the defendants’ interests. It concluded that allowing the residents to intervene would delay and prejudice the original parties’ rights in a case that Congress directed courts to decide on an expedited basis.

Amicus Briefs

The court stated that the residents had not properly sought permission to file amicus briefs. It nevertheless considered the request and denied it. The court found that the residents were advocating for the defendants rather than offering an objective and neutral perspective, had their own particular interests in the outcome, and would not provide additional briefing that clarified the issues or assisted the court.

Disposition

The court denied the residents’ motion to intervene and denied their alternative motion for leave to file amicus curiae briefs. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 45. The opinion did not decide whether the Town’s denials violated the Telecommunications Act.