Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04034/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04034-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

 

4007830.11 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

4:07-CV-04034-WDB 

HENRY WEISSMANN (SBN 132418)

Henry.Weissmann@mto.com 

MARC BECKER (SBN 138872) 

Marc.Becker@mto.com 

BRADLEY R. SCHNEIDER (SBN 235296) 

Bradley.Schneider@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

355 South Grand Avenue 

Thirty-Fifth Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 

Telephone: (213) 683-9100 

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 

MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP 

JAMES A. HEARD (SBN 114940) 

jheard@mallp.com 

One Post Street, Suite 500 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 288-4000 

Facsimile: (415) 288 4010 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California 

limited partnership d/b/a VERIZON 

WIRELESS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CITY OF BERKELEY, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 07-04034 WDB 

STIPULATION REGARDING STAY OF 

ACTION; ORDER 

Case 4:07-cv-04034-WDB Document 48 Filed 05/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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 

4007830.11 -2- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

4:07-CV-04034-WDB 

This stipulation is made with reference to the following facts: 

1. On August 8, 2007, GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”) filed a complaint against the City of Berkeley (“the City”). 

2. Verizon Wireless’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that Section 253(a) of 

the federal Communications Act (the “Act”) expressly preempts the City’s Wireless 

Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) and an injunction against enforcement 

of the Ordinance. Verizon Wireless’s complaint also asserts that the City has violated Section 

332(c)(7)(B)(ii) of the Act by failing to act within a reasonable period of time on Verizon 

Wireless’s applications for conditional use permits (“CUP”) to install wireless communications 

facilities at the following locations in Berkeley: 

• 2721 Shattuck Avenue (the “Bekins Facility”) 

• 1540 Shattuck Avenue (the “North Shattuck Facility”) 

• 2002 Acton Street (the “Lower University Facility”) 

3. On October 2, 2007, Verizon Wireless filed a motion for partial summary 

judgment on its claim for unreasonable delay with respect to the Bekins Facility. 

4. On November 6, 2007, the City issued Verizon Wireless a CUP for the Bekins 

Facility. Verizon Wireless then withdrew as moot its October 2, 2007, motion for partial 

summary judgment. 

5. The parties desire to resolve this action on the terms set forth below. 

IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, by and through their 

undersigned counsel of record, as follows: 

1. The City will take final action on the North Shattuck and Lower University 

applications (“the Verizon Wireless Applications”) within eight months from the date it receives 

deposits for third-party engineering and/or acoustic review from Verizon Wireless. For purposes 

of this Stipulation, the term “final action” means a decision approving or disapproving an 

application that is no longer subject to administrative appeal. 

2. The third-party engineering and/or acoustic review process will move forward in 

connection with the City’s consideration of the Verizon Wireless Applications, provided however 

Case 4:07-cv-04034-WDB Document 48 Filed 05/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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 

4007830.11 -3- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

4:07-CV-04034-WDB 

that Verizon Wireless reserves its right to decline to provide particular data or information 

requested by the third-party engineer. Nothing in this Stipulation shall waive any right to assert 

that the City’s request and/or requirement for third-party engineering and/or acoustic review is 

unlawful under 47 U.S.C. § 253 or otherwise, and this Stipulation shall have no effect on the 

Court’s adjudication of any such claim by Verizon Wireless. Nothing in this Stipulation shall 

waive any right to deny the Verizon Wireless Applications on the basis that Verizon Wireless 

failed to provide particular data or information requested by the third-party engineer. 

3. If the City fails to take final action on either of the Verizon Wireless Applications 

within the time specified in this Stipulation, the City hereby stipulates that, with respect to such 

application(s), the failure to take action within the time specified was not “reasonable” under 47 

U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii). The parties stipulate to no other facts, claims, issues, or remedies 

relating to the City’s actions on the application(s). 

4. Subject to the provisions of this Stipulation and the Court’s approval, this action 

will be stayed pending the effectuation of the acts contemplated by this Stipulation. 

5. If the City fails to act within the dates specified by this Stipulation with respect to 

either of the Verizon Wireless Applications, or takes final action to deny either of the Verizon 

Wireless Applications, whether within the dates specified or otherwise, the stay shall be lifted and 

Verizon Wireless may pursue any and all claims with respect to such application. 

6. If the City takes final action to approve each application within the dates specified 

and otherwise complies with its obligations set forth herein, Verizon Wireless will dismiss Counts 

II, III, and IV of the Complaint with prejudice, and will dismiss Count I without prejudice. 

7. Within eight months from the date of execution of this Stipulation, the City will 

consider amendments to the Ordinance. 

Case 4:07-cv-04034-WDB Document 48 Filed 05/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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 

4007830.11 -4- STIPULATION AND ORDER 

4:07-CV-04034-WDB 

8. The parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the 

Stipulation and to adjudicate Verizon Wireless’s claims in the event the parties cannot resolve 

those claims according to the agreement set forth in this Stipulation. 

DATED: May 20, 2008 MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP

HENRY WEISSMANN 

MARC BECKER 

BRADLEY R. SCHNEIDER 

By: s/Henry Weissmann 

HENRY WEISSMANN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

GTE MOBILNET OF CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS 

DATED: May 20, 2008 MILLER, OWEN & TROST 

A Professional Corporation 

KIRK E. TROST 

MADELINE E. MILLER 

By: s/Kirk E. Trost 

KIRK E. TROST 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CITY OF BERKELEY 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 21, 2008 ____________________________ 

 Hon. Wayne D. Brazil 

Case 4:07-cv-04034-WDB Document 48 Filed 05/22/08 Page 4 of 4