• On February 22, 2011, a New Jersey appeals court affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the Zoning Board of Adjustment of New Milford wrongly denied T-Mobile’s application for site plan approval and the variances needed to construct a ninety-foot monopole. The trial court had concluded that the positive criteria supporting the grant of the application “far outweigh the negative,” but the Board insisted on appeal that T-Mobile’s application was properly denied because it did not commit to using the “most effective means of camouflage for its facility.” In affirming the decision, the appellate court held that the Board “erroneously found that the adverse visual impact of the facility, and [T-Mobile’s] failure to employ what it termed the highest and best means of camouflage for the facility, was sufficient to warrant denial of plaintiff’s application,” for in so doing the Board failed to acknowledge the positive elements of the application. T-Mobile Ne., LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of New Milford, Docket No. A-3068-09T3.
  • On February 15, 2011, a group of plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Sprint Nextel and HTC America are engaged in consumer fraud by falsely marketing their wireless service and devices as “4G”. The plaintiffs challenge “Sprint’s continuous, systematic, and broad-reaching commission of consumer fraud through its patently false representations to the Plaintiffs and the American public at large that it provides ‘4G’ wireless cellular service from its ‘WiMax’ cellular telecommunications network system platform.” Rather than 4G service – which they allege is not yet provided anywhere in America – the plaintiffs claim that Sprint’s service is, “at best,” a “slightly enhanced version of the very same, simple WiMax platform that it has been selling and marketing to the public for several years now as its ‘3G’ cellular telecommunications network system platform!” Elaborating, the plaintiffs allege that Sprint’s “current WiMax system is considered ‘pre-4G,’ as it does not comply with the requirements of ‘1Gbit/s for stationary reception and 100 Mbit/s for mobile,” which are standards set by the International Telecommunications Union. The plaintiffs seek nationwide class certification and damages in excess of $5 million. Coronado v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 11-cv-00706-JCS (N.D. Cal.).