• On April 12, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed, for lack of standing, an appeal filed by Tama Broadcasting’s former CEO, Glenn Cherry, challenging the FCC’s denial of his application for review of the decision approving the involuntary assignment of Tama’s broadcast licenses to a receiver. Cherry argued that “because of the involuntary assignment of the radio broadcast licenses from Tama to the receiver, he has suffered losses of ownership and voting rights as a Tama shareholder.” But the court concluded that “these injuries cannot be traced to the FCC’s approval of the license assignments” but rather to the antecedent events within the New York state foreclosure action brought by Tama’s creditor. The court concluded that the “alleged injuries were caused by Tama’s default on its loan payments, [the creditor’s] foreclosure action, and the New York court’s appointment of a receiver. This court has no authority to review those actions.” Cherry v. FCC, No. 10-1151 (D.C. Cir.).
  • On April 4, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida agreed with T-Mobile South that the City of Margate improperly denied its request to place a new wireless communication facility in the city’s Centennial Park. The court was first asked to decide which test would apply to the review of wireless carries’ tower siting requests. The City advocated a strict test, embraced in the First and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, that requires carriers to show that the proposed site is the “only feasible plan” and that “no alternative sites” would fill the coverage gap. T-Mobile urged the Court to follow the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits’ standard that a wireless carrier’s plan is appropriate so long as it is the “least intrusive means” to fill the gap. The court concluded that the Eleventh Circuit “would adopt a test more favorable to service providers than the ‘no alternative’ standard advocated by the City.” Dispensing with the City’s other arguments, the court ordered it to issue T-Mobile the necessary permits to construct the proposed facility. T-Mobile South LLC v. City of Margate, No. 10-cv-60029 (S.D. Fla.).