Litigants Reach Some Agreement on Procedure in 9th Circuit Infrastructure Cases
Various parties reached consensus on parts of the process as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considers challenges to FCC infrastructure orders, said a joint report Thursday (in Pacer) on a case management conference. In earlier orders, the court…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
consolidated challenges by Sprint and 11 others to a September order restricting local fees and reviews of small-cell siting applications (see 1903200045) under Sprint v. FCC, No. 19-70123. The September order case will be assigned to the same merits panel that reviews Portland and American Electric Power Service challenges to an August ruling/order barring local infrastructure moratoriums and revising pole-attachment processes. The latter two also were consolidated under Portland v. FCC, No. 18-72689. “The parties agree that it makes sense to have the AEP Appeal briefing proceed separately from the Portland Appeal and Small Cell Appeals,” the report says. “The parties also agree that there should be consolidated briefing for the Portland Appeal and Small Cell Appeals. The parties agree that, unless matters are held in abeyance, the record would be filed for all appeals within 20 days of the conclusion of the case management conference.” There was also agreement the schedule for the AEP appeal should require principal briefing about 15 days after the date scheduled for the principal briefs in the Portland and small-cell appeals, “unless the Portland and Small Cell Appeals are stayed or held in abeyance, in which case the AEP Appeal petitioners request that the briefing in their case move forward,” the report said. The parties discussed, but didn’t agree on, the briefing schedule for the Portland and small-cell appeals “and possible expedited calendaring for all appeals,” the document says: “Local government petitioners and intervenors and publicly-owned utilities and petitioners on the AEP Appeal also wish to briefly discuss the relationship of the schedule and a possible motion to stay the effectiveness of the orders on appeal.”