Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03442/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-03442-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

METROPCS INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Plaintiff, No. C 02-3442 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO ALTER, AMEND, OR CLARIFY

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN JUDGMENT

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, and THE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff’s motion to alter, amend, or clarify the judgment, or for a new trial, came on

for hearing before this court on August 9, 2006. Plaintiff, MetroPCS, Inc. (“plaintiff”),

appeared through its counsel, Martin L. Fineman. Defendants, the City and County of San

Francisco and the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco

(collectively “defendants”), appeared through their counsel, William K. Sanders. Having

read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion, for the

reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

Plaintiff’s motion fails to make the requisite showing for alteration, amendment, or

clarification of the court’s June 16, 2006 judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

52, 59, or 60. Plaintiff fails to establish any manifest error of law or fact contained in the

relevant Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, point to newly discovered evidence or an

intervening change in controlling law, or otherwise establish that the instant motion is

necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Rather, plaintiff’s motion is directed at rearguing

Case 4:02-cv-03442-PJH Document 176 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the arguments raised by plaintiff at trial with respect to the “least intrusive” element of

MetroPCS’ effective prohibition claim. This is an improper attempt to have the court

reconsider its prior ruling, and the court hereby denies plaintiff’s motion. 

In so doing, however, the court also makes the following observations. First, with

respect to plaintiff’s arguments regarding the court’s discussion of the community

opposition factor, plaintiff’s characterization of the court’s decision as establishing a rule

that a plaintiff can only prevail on the “least intrusive” inquiry if it does not face any

community opposition, is incorrect. The court’s decision, read correctly, considered

community opposition as only one of the factors bearing on the “least intrusive” inquiry, and

stated that, by the time MetroPCS’ appeal was heard by the City, the community opposition

to the proposed site was “significant.” 

Second, plaintiff’s interpretation of the court’s ruling on the “least intrusive” inquiry

with respect to MetroPCS’ alternative site analysis report is equally misguided. The court’s

ruling does not, as plaintiff argues, require a plaintiff to prove that every alternative site is

not technologically feasible or that the proposed site is the “only viable option,” a standard

that has been expressly considered and rejected by the Ninth Circuit in MetroPCS v. The

City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715, 734 (9th Cir. 2005). The court’s ruling

merely stated that the alternative site analysis report submitted by MetroPCS does not

actually establish that the proposed site was truly the least intrusive compared to the

alternative sites listed in the report, given Ms. Nahmanson’s testimony regarding the

“technological feasibility” designation contained therein and the fact that the report was

compiled to satisfy engineering needs. 

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-03442-PJH Document 176 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2