St. Joseph Denies Its Rejection of AT&T Tower Application Violated TCA

AT&T seeks an order requiring St. Joseph to approve the application and authorizing AT&T to build the tower, plus granting all other permits to install, operate and maintain it. But the court lacks authority and jurisdiction to grant AT&T’s requested relief, said the city’s answer. The complaint doesn’t mention or address any other permits that may be necessary for the tower, it said. There’s therefore “no basis” for the court to enter an order involving other permits that aren’t at issue in the case, it said.

The court also lacks jurisdiction to grant AT&T’s requested relief “because federal courts are not authorized to compel action by municipal officials in the performance of their duties,” said St. Joseph’s answer. Mandamus relief directing city officials to take certain actions “is only available in ministerial actions, not for discretionary actions like the issuance of a conditional use permit,” it said. AT&T’s requested relief, that the court overrule the city’s discretion and order the city to take certain actions, “essentially, to issue a writ of mandamus, is not permissible,” it said.

AT&T seeks “declaratory and equitable relief” contesting the city’s tower denial, said St. Joseph’s answer. But “equitable remedies and declaratory judgment” aren’t available where a plaintiff seeks review of a contested case under Missouri’s wireless infrastructure deployment statute, it said.

AT&T filed suit in the wrong venue to bring its Missouri statutory claims because the statute grants “exclusive jurisdiction” of those claims to Missouri circuit courts, said St. Joseph’s answer. The proper venue for AT&T’s claims is the Missouri circuit court in the county where the “real property is located,” it said. AT&T’s request for judicial review of the city’s denial should have been filed in the circuit court of Buchanan County, it said.

But AT&T chose “not to file suit in the appropriate court,” said St. Joseph’s answer. The Western District of Missouri lacks jurisdiction, it said. AT&T’s claim is “unripe,” because it “failed to exhaust its state remedies and file this action pursuant to the statute under which it seeks relief,” the city said.

AT&T’s complaint should be dismissed “for lack of standing,” said St. Joseph’s answer. AT&T failed to allege facts that would establish it suffered any injury that’s “not hypothetical or self-inflicted,” it said. AT&T concedes it’s currently providing wireless services in the area “and only alleges a potential possibility of being required to decommission its existing facilities,” it said. Any injury that AT&T might suffer is a consequence of its “own choices regarding siting locations,” rather than any actions taken by the city, it said.

AT&T also fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted, said St. Joseph’s answer. It hasn’t sufficiently established “the elements of a claim of prohibition of services” under the TCA, it said. AT&T’s own allegations establish that the city’s denial didn’t prohibit AT&T from providing wireless telecommunications services, because it’s currently providing those services in the vicinity of the proposed tower, it said.

AT&T’s exhibits show the existing coverage it provides in the area is “good coverage,” said St. Joseph’s answer. AT&T failed to allege “anything beyond a self-inflicted, possibility of a prohibition of services,” it said. The company also failed to allege facts showing a significant coverage gap, the city said. It also concedes that not having the proposed tower won’t result in a service gap at all, St. Joseph's answer said. AT&T has alleged only that not having the proposed tower “might lead to the possibility that the network may become overloaded,” it said.

AT&T makes further “conclusory allegations” of a gap in only AT&T’s coverage, “rather than a gap in all wireless services for all providers,” said St. Joseph’s answer. AT&T also failed to allege facts that demonstrate the proposed location “was the only possible location for the tower,” it said. The complaint fails to state a claim for prohibition under the TCA, it said.