Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. City of Wilmington
C.A. No. 2019-0656-MTZ
| Del. Ch. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Crown Castle sought to install 33 wireless antenna Nodes and attendant grounding rings on utility poles in the City of Wilmington, some located in DelDOT rights-of-way.
- The City withheld routine building permits and conditioned approvals on Crown Castle entering a license agreement under local wireless ordinances.
- Crown Castle sued seeking declaratory relief under state and federal law (including 17 Del. C. §§1601 et seq. and 47 U.S.C. §253(a)) and two injunctions: (1) a Building Permit Injunction to compel issuance of routine permits for work in DelDOT ROWs; and (2) a Good Faith Injunction compelling the City to negotiate license terms in good faith.
- Crown Castle moved for summary judgment; the Court sua sponte examined whether the Court of Chancery has subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested equitable relief.
- The Court concluded that adequate remedies at law exist (declaratory relief and mandamus in Superior Court for ministerial permits) and therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, allowing Crown Castle to transfer the case to Superior Court within 60 days under 10 Del. C. §1902.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building Permit Injunction: whether chancery may issue an injunction compelling issuance of routine building permits (including for DelDOT ROW work) | Crown Castle: City unlawfully withheld routine, ministerial permits and an injunction is needed to compel issuance so installations can proceed | City: Permit issuance is ministerial and mandamus in Superior Court (or a declaratory judgment) provides an adequate legal remedy; request is a "follow-the-law" injunction | Held: Injunction unavailable in Chancery — either declaratory relief will resolve entitlement to permits or mandamus in Superior Court is the adequate remedy at law; Chancery lacks equitable jurisdiction on this claim |
| Good Faith Injunction: whether Chancery may order the City to negotiate license terms in good faith | Crown Castle: Even if City cannot require a license, an injunction requiring good-faith negotiation is necessary to prevent delay or obstruction | City: A declaratory judgment resolving the parties’ legal rights eliminates the need for a forward-looking injunction; no reasonable apprehension City will ignore a court declaration | Held: Injunctive relief to compel future good-faith negotiations is unnecessary and unavailable absent a showing of reasonable apprehension of future wrong; declaratory relief is adequate |
| Overall subject-matter jurisdiction: whether plaintiff’s equitable claims bring the case within Chancery jurisdiction | Crown Castle: Requests for injunctions and declaratory relief invoke Chancery jurisdiction | City: Adequate legal remedies exist, so equitable jurisdiction does not attach | Held: Chancery lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff has adequate remedies at law; case dismissed with option to transfer to Superior Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Organovo Hldgs., Inc. v. Dimitrov, 162 A.3d 102 (Del. Ch. 2017) (explaining limits on prospective "follow-the-law" injunctions and reliance on declaratory relief)
- Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Comdisco, Inc., 602 A.2d 74 (Del. Ch. 1991) (Court of Chancery must assess equitable jurisdiction and will not accept cases where legal remedy is adequate)
- McMahon v. New Castle Assocs., 532 A.2d 601 (Del. Ch. 1987) (prospective injunctive relief unavailable when it merely enforces a declaratory judgment)
- Hughes Tool Co. v. Fawcett Publ’ns, Inc., 315 A.2d 577 (Del. 1974) (Chancery lacks jurisdiction if a law court provides a complete, practical, and efficient remedy)
- Candlewood Timber Gp., LLC v. Pan Am. Energy, LLC, 859 A.2d 989 (Del. 2004) (identifies ways Chancery may acquire subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1803) (foundational discussion of writs and mandamus authority)
- Brittingham v. Town of Georgetown, 113 A.3d 519 (Del. 2015) (defining ministerial duties enforceable by mandamus)
- State ex rel. Abbott v. Aaronson, 206 A.3d 260 (Del. 2019) (discussing mandamus and ministerial duties)
- Remedio v. City of Newark, 337 A.2d 317 (Del. 1975) (recognizing circumstances where governmental discretion limits mandamus availability)
- Potter v. City of Wilmington, 201 A.3d 1161 (Del. 2019) (illustrates limits on equitable relief where legal remedies or discretionary governmental action are implicated)