Consumer Electronics Daily was a Warren News publication.
No Irreparable Harm

N.J. Town Denies It Violated Verizon’s Section 704 Rights, Seeks Dismissal

Ocean City, New Jersey, denies U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden, has subject matter jurisdiction over Verizon’s claims because its action wasn’t commenced in a timely manner, said the city’s answer Friday (docket 1:23-cv-04370). Verizon alleges the city violated Section 704 of the Communications Act by effectively prohibiting Verizon’s provision of personal wireless services and because it denied the application without substantial evidence contained in the written record, it said (see 2308140028).

Ocean City, according to Verizon, engaged in the “unreasonable and unsupportable” denial of Verizon’s application for “minor site plan approval” to build and install a personal wireless services facility. But the city denies Verizon was “adversely affected and aggrieved” by any of the city’s actions, it said. The city demands judgment dismissing Verizon’s, plus it seeks the recovery of reasonable counsel fees and court costs, and for such other relief as the Court might deem “equitable and just,” it said.

Verizon’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and its complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, said Ocean City’s answer. The city’s actions weren’t “arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable,” as Verizon alleges, it said.

The city complied with all relevant federal and state laws, including New Jersey’s municipal land use law that governed Verizon’s application for the wireless facility, said Ocean City’s answer. The city breached no duty to Verizon, nor did the city violate any of Verizon’s rights under Section 704, it said. Verizon hasn’t suffered any damages due to Ocean City’s “actions or inactions,” it said.

The claims alleged in the complaint “resulted from circumstances and conditions beyond the control” of Ocean City, said the city’s answer. Verizon also failed to “exhaust administrative remedies,” and it’s not entitled to injunctive relief because it hasn’t sustained irreparable harm, it said.