Read Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 05-56076, 05-56435

In a suit brought by wireless service providers to prevent San Diego County from enforcing its Wireless Telecommunications Facilities zoning ordinance, grant of a permanent injunction and denial of plaintiffs' claim for money damages and attorney's fees are affirmed where: 1) the burdens imposed by the ordinance were sufficient to sustain a facial challenge under the Telecommunications Act section 253(a); and 2) Congress did not intend to permit enforcement of section 253(a) through a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 damages action.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/24/2008
• Submitted 06/24/2008
• Decided 03/13/2007
• Published 03/13/2007

Judges

• Before:  ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, HAWKINS, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, SUSAN P. GRABER, RONALD M. GOULD, MARSHA S. BERZON, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Andrew G. McBride and Joshua S. Turner, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC;  William K. Sanders, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, CA;  Joseph Van Eaton, Miller & Van Eaton, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC;  John J. Flynn III, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, LLP, Irvine, CA;  T. Scott Thompson, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Washington, DC;  and Elaine Duncan and Jesus G. Roman, Verizon California, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, for amici curiae.


• For Appellees:
  
• Daniel T. Pascucci and Nathan R. Hamler, Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee., Thomas D. Bunton, Senior Deputy County Counsel, County of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for the defendants-appellees-cross-appellants.