Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04056/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04056-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, dba VERIZON WIRELESS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04056 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On February 3, 2006, the Court heard oral arguments on defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). After carefully considering the pleadings and

the arguments presented, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to

dismiss as to plaintiff’s fourth and sixth claims for relief, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the

motion as to plaintiff’s fifth claim for relief, and DENIES the motion as to plaintiff’s first, second, third

and seventh claims for relief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff GTE Mobilenet of California Limited Partnership, dba Verizon Wireless filed this

action against defendants, alleging that defendants’ refusal to allow plaintiff to install wireless

equipment on the public rights-of-way in San Francisco violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996

and other constitutional and statutory rights. Defendants now move to dismiss.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss will only be granted if “it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claim which would

entitle it to relief.” See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Fidelity Financial Corp. v. Fed.

Case 3:05-cv-04056-SI Document 31 Filed 02/07/06 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

Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 792 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1986).

Under this standard the bulk of plaintiff’s claims survive. Plaintiff’s first and second claims,

which allege violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, are pleaded squarely within the

appropriate statutes and withstand the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Sprint PCS Assets, L.L.C. v. City of

La Canada Flintridge, __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 91541 (9th Cir. 2006); Qwest Communications Corp. v.

City of Berkeley, 208 F.R.D. 288 (N.D. Cal. 2002). In addition, defendants’ objections to the third claim

implicate factual matters and are therefore inappropriate on a motion to dismiss. Further, the portion

of plaintiff’s fifth claim which states a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for violation of substantiative due process

is also viable for pleading purposes. See generally Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of

Monterey, 920 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1990). Finally, given the close relationship between plaintiff’s

federal and state law claims, the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state issues

contained in the seventh claim. 

Certain of plaintiffs claims, however, are not cognizable. The Court dismisses the fourth claim

because, as plaintiff acknowledges, the claim is not properly pleaded. SeeChapman v. Houston Welfare

Rights Organization, 441 U.S. 600 (1979). The portion of plaintiff’s fifth claim that states a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on plaintiff’s rights under 47 U.S.C. § 253 also fails because that statute

does not support a § 1983 action. See Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 377 F. Supp.

2d 886 (S.D. Cal. 2005). Finally, the Court dismisses the sixth claim because declaratory relief is not

a cause of action, but a type of remedy. Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation,

873 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss as to plaintiff’s fourth

and sixth claims for relief, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion as to plaintiff’s fifth claim

for relief, and DENIES the motion as to plaintiff’s first, second, third and seventh claims for relief.

[Docket ## 11, 12.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04056-SI Document 31 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2