T Mobile Northeast LLC v. City of Wilmington
913 F.3d 311
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- T-Mobile applied to Wilmington Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a special-exception to place a cellular antenna; the ZBA orally denied the application at an Oct. 26, 2016 hearing.
- The ZBA did not issue a contemporaneous written decision; T‑Mobile filed suit in federal district court within 30 days of the oral denial under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(v).
- After the City answered, the ZBA issued a written decision (restating the denial). Nearly a year later T‑Mobile moved to supplement its complaint to add the written decision; the district court allowed supplementation.
- The district court held it lacked jurisdiction: the initial complaint was unripe because only written denials are final under the TCA/Delaware law, and the supplemental complaint (filed more than 30 days after the written decision) could not relate back to cure ripeness.
- The Third Circuit reversed: it held (1) an oral denial is not a final action under the TCA (finality requires a written decision), (2) the 30‑day filing window in §332 is non‑jurisdictional, and (3) a Rule 15(d) supplemental pleading may relate back under Rule 15(c) and cure an initially unripe complaint, so the district court had jurisdiction and must reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral zoning denial is a “final action” under the TCA | Oral denial was the board’s decision and started the 30‑day clock | Final action requires a written decision; Delaware practice requires filing for finality | Oral denial is not a final action; written decision required for finality |
| Whether the § 332(c)(7)(B)(v) 30‑day filing window is jurisdictional | Even if not, relation back should cure any timing issue; alternatively oral decision was final | The 30‑day window is jurisdictional and bars late supplementation | The 30‑day window is non‑jurisdictional (timing is not jurisdictional) |
| Whether a supplemental pleading filed after the 30‑day window can relate back to cure an unripe initial complaint | Rule 15(d) supplement may relate back under Rule 15(c) when core facts are the same; defendant had notice | Allowing relation back would reward filing prematurely and undermine local finality; creates procedural gamesmanship | A supplemental pleading may relate back under Rule 15(c) to cure an initially unripe complaint when the Rule 15(c) relation‑back test is satisfied; here relation back applies |
| Whether courts should imply an additional time limit requiring written decisions to be issued shortly after oral determinations (i.e., a post‑oral deadline) | A short post‑oral deadline is necessary to avoid delay and double suits (failure‑to‑act then merits) | Shot‑clock and failure‑to‑act remedy already address delay; no textual basis for extra deadline | No separate judicially created post‑oral deadline; shot‑clock covers ‘‘failure to act’’ and written decision constitutes the act that triggers review |
Key Cases Cited
- Nextel W. Corp. v. Unity Twp., 282 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2002) (TCA review provision confers federal benefit to wireless providers)
- Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 903 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 2018) (federal finality standard applies when state process defines decisionmaking)
- T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 135 S.Ct. 808 (2015) (written reasons contemporaneous with written denial; written notice is the relevant final action)
- USCOC of Greater Mo. v. City of Ferguson, 583 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2009) (TCA final action occurs upon issuance of a written decision)
- Preferred Sites LLC v. Troup Cty., 296 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2002) (statute’s plain language requires written decision for final action)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. Ctr., 568 U.S. 145 (2013) (guidance on when statutory timing provisions are jurisdictional)
- United States v. Kalb, 891 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2018) (framework for assessing whether a timing rule is jurisdictional)