Up State Tower Co., LLC v. Town of Kiantone
17-1037
| 2d Cir. | Dec 5, 2017Background
- Up State Tower Co. filed an application to site wireless facilities in the Town of Kiantone; the Town failed to decide within the FCC’s "shot clock" period (90/150 days).
- Up State sued under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) alleging the Town violated the TCA by not acting within a reasonable period.
- The district court found a Shot Clock violation but denied affirmative injunctive relief directing the Town to grant the application, instead giving the Town a short additional period to decide.
- Up State appealed the denial of affirmative injunctive relief, arguing the TCA, precedent, and federal broadband policy require courts to order approval when a locality fails to act within a reasonable time.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the denial of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion and considered the TCA and FCC interpretations (Shot Clock and Infrastructure Orders) entitled to Chevron deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Shot Clock violation requires an injunction granting the application | Up State: TCA text, purpose, and precedent compel courts to order approval when a locality fails to act within a reasonable time | Town: Courts have discretion to fashion remedies; injunction granting application is not mandatory | Held: Denial of affirmative injunction was not an abuse of discretion; courts may fashion case-specific remedies in light of FCC guidance |
| Whether other cases establish a blanket rule awarding approval after Shot Clock violations | Up State: Other courts have "overwhelmingly" granted approvals after violations | Town: Many cited cases involved additional statutory violations or extraordinary conduct, so they don't create a per se rule | Held: Circuit precedent and cited cases do not establish a mandatory remedy; contextual differences matter |
| Whether national broadband policy requires courts to order approval after Shot Clock violations | Up State: National deployment policy favors mandatory relief to speed broadband | Town: Policy does not override statutory text and FCC interpretation that remedies are discretionary | Held: Federal policy does not mandate a presumption of injunction; FCC declined to impose automatic relief |
| Whether the district court’s remedy (short additional time to decide) violated the TCA | Up State: Additional time effectively thwarts TCA’s prompt-decision requirement | Town: A short, finite extension is consistent with case-specific remedies and does not contravene the TCA | Held: The district court’s limited extension was permissible and aligned with the statute and FCC guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (describing TCA’s goal of accelerating wireless deployment)
- Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 1999) (discussing remedies under § 332(c)(7)(B) and that the statute does not prescribe a specific remedy)
- Paramedics Electromedicina Commercial, Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard of review for injunctions)
- In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (deference to reasonable FCC interpretations of the Communications Act)