1

07 - 51 84 - cv G l oba l N et w ork C om mun i cati ons, I nc. v. C i t y of N ew Y ork

1 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS 2 F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T

3 Aug ust Term, 2008 4 (Argued: October 16, 2008 Dec ided: April 8, 2009)

5 Docke t No. 07-5184-c v

6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 GL OB AL

NETWORK COMMUNI CATI ONS, 8 I NC., 9 Plaintif f-Appellant 10 v. 11 CI TY OF NEW YORK and CI TY OF NEW YORK 12 DEPARTMENT OF I NFO RMATI ON TECHNO L OGY 13 AN D T EL ECO MMU NI CA TI ON S 14 Defendants-A ppellees 15 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 17 18 19 20 Be fore : McL AUGHL I N, L EVAL , and POOL ER, Circuit Judges

. 21 Plaintiff, Global Networ k Communi cations, Inc., appe als from the district c ourt’s g rant of 22 summary

judgme nt in favor of defe ndants in an action contesting the City of Ne w York’ s denial of 23 plaintiff’s application for a f ranc hise to operate public pay telephones on public pro p er t y . The 24 district court re

jected the plaintiff’s alleg ation that the def endants’ a ctions (1) violated Sec tion 253 25 of

the fe de ra l T e le c omm

un ic a tio ns Ac t, 45 U .S. C. § 25 3, (2 ) w e re pr e e mpt e d und e r f e de ra l and

state 26 law, and

(3 ) v iol a te d th e pla int if

f’ s c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts un de r t he F ir st a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts2 1 and the Contracts C lause. The court of appe als (L eval, J. ) a ff ir ms the g ra

nt of su mma

ry jud g me nt. 2 J OSEPH P. GARL AND, L ifshutz & L ifshutz, P .C., 3 New Y ork, NY, f or Plaintif f-Appellant

. 4 BRUCE REGAL , Assistant Corporati on Counsel 5 (John Hogrog ian, Pamela Seider Dolg ow, and Dia

na 6 M. Murray , Assistant Co rp oration Counsels, on the 7 brief) for Michae l A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel 8 of th e Ci ty o f N e w Y o r k , N e w Y o r

k , NY, for 9 Defendants-A ppellees

.

10 L EVAL , Circuit Judge : 11 Pla i n t i ff

, Global Networ

k Communi cations, Inc. (“ Global”) appea ls from an orde r of the 12 United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Stanton, J .) g ranting summary 13 judgme nt in favor of defe ndants, the City of New York (“City ”) and its Depar tment of I nformation 14 Tec hnology and Telec ommunications ( “DoI TT”)

. Global’s lawsuit results from the C i t y ’s d enial 15 of Gl ob a l’ s a

pp lic a tio n f

or a pu bli c pa y te le ph on e (“ PPT” ) f

ra nc his e on the ba sis of

its tie s to 16 org anized crime, its past history of fraud, and its debts and arr ear s. The district cour t held that the 1 7 Ci ty ’ s d e n ia l o f G lo b a l’ s a p p li c a ti o n , a s w e ll a s th e Ci ty ’ s r e g u lato r y s c h e me f

o r PP T s , did not 18 violate the fe dera l Telec ommunications Act of 1996 ( “TCA”) , 47 U.S.C. § 253. The district court 19 further held that the City ’s re g ulatory scheme for PPTs was not pree mpted by state or f eder al law. 20 F ina lly , th e c ourt dis mis se d Gl ob a l’ s c la ims that the City ’s a c tio ns vio la te d it s c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts

. 21 We ag ree with the district court’s conclusion that the City ’s actions fall square ly within the 22 safe harbor

provisions of Section 253(c) of the TCA, whic h provide loca l govern m en t wi th the 23 authority

to manag e public rig hts-of-wa y and to re quire fa ir and r ea s o n ab le compensation from3 1 telecommunications providers. Global fur t h er m o re has fa iled to identify any fede ral or state law 2 that pree mpts the Cit y ’s ac tions, and its constit utional claims are without merit. T h erefore , we 3 a ff ir m th e su mma

ry jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

. 4 BACK GR OUND 5 Since 1959, New York City

has re quired a

licen s e as a precondition to the installation or 6 operation of a PPT on c ity -owne d and city -mana g ed prope rty , including side walks. Prior to 1995, 7 the City

did no t e nf or c e thi s r e qu ir e me nt r ig or ou sly . Se ve ra l te le c ommun icatio ns pr ov ide rs , 8 inc lud ingGl ob a l, i ns ta lle d P P Ts on Ci ty sid e wa lks and

on the sid e s o f b uil din g s in tr ud ingon to 9 public rig hts-of-wa y without having obta ined the re quired lice nse. In 1 9 9 5 , h o w ever , the City passed 1 0 L o c a l L aw 6 8 , w h ic h e s ta b li s h e d th e r e g u lato r

y s c h e me in e f

f e c t to d ay . T h a t l aw p r o v id e s th a t “ [n ]o 11 pu

bli c pa y te le ph on e sh a ll b e ins ta lle d .

. . [on] a ny str e e t or oth e r i na lie na

ble pr op e rt

y of the c ity 12 without a permit.” N.Y. C ity Admin. Code § 23-402. P ermits are issued only to telecommunications 13 providers w ho have be en g rante d a fr anchise to operate PPTs b y t he City ’s DoI TT. Id . § 23- 14 403(a) (1). L ocal L aw 68 also offe red a conditional amnesty proce dure w here by previously

installed 15 unlicensed PPTs co u l d re m ain in operation if the owner obta ined a f ranc hise, identified its pre16 exis ting PPTs on a re g istry submitt ed to the DoI TT, and paid the City interim fee s equal to $75 per 17 PPT per y ear , and the Commi ssioner lodge d no objection to the continued ope ration of suc h phones 18 on

City -o wn e d p ro pe rt

y . N .Y . Ci ty L ocal L aw 68 , § 6( a ), (d ) ( 19 95 ). Any c omp any

wh os e 1 9 a p p l i c at i o nf

o r a f r an c h i s e w a s d e n i e d

b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r ’ s d e c i s i o nn o tt o a p p r o v e a f r an c h i se 20 for suc h owner , was oblig ed within 30 day s either to re move its unlicensed P PTs or sell them to a 21 company

that possessed a f

ranc hise. Id . § 6(c)

. L ocal L aw 68 a pplies only to City

proper ty ; PP Ts4 1 on private pr operty are not subje ct to the City ’s regulatory scheme

. See N.Y. City Admin. Code § 2 23-402. 3 On M ay 30, 2000, the DoI TT rejected Global’s initial reque st for a fra nchise on the g round 4 that it s CE O a

nd so le sh are ho lde r, Ron a ld M a ssi e , is an a sso c ia te of the B on na

no or g anize d c ri me 5 fa mil y a c c us e d o f l oa

n s ha rk ingand mon e y la

un de ri ng thr ou g h the c omp any . M a ssi e su bs e qu e ntl y 6 pleade d g uilty

to a federa l indictment char g ing him with loan s harking , mail fra ud, and bank fraud. 7 He late r testified that Globa l derived 20 to 30 perc ent of its business from locations that were c hosen 8 or sec ured by

members of

the B onnano cr ime family . He a dmitted t o u s i n g connec tions to t he 9 B on na

no c ri me fa mil y

in o rd e r t o s e c ur e PPT l oc a tio ns , a nd pr op e rt y ow ne rs re po rt e d th a t th e se 10 individuals threatene d an d i n t i m i dated them into ac ceptingthe PPTs. Massie also admitted that 11 Global had defr auded the owner s of the proper ties on which Global ha d installed its P PTs out of $1.8 12 milli on in commissions

. 13 Global cha lleng ed the f ranc hise denial through a specia l proce eding pursuant to Article 78 14 of the Ne w York Civil Pr ac t i ce L aw s an d Rules. On J uly 1, 2002, the New

York Supreme Court 15 (Ga

ns, J .) vacated and rema

nded the matter to the DoI TT for f urther pr ocee dings be cause the denial 16 implicated Global’s liber ty and prope rty

interests and G lobal therefo re s h o uld be af forde d “an 17 opportunity

to respond to t he alleg ations reg arding[Massie’s] conviction and its relationship t o the 18 operation of the business.” Gl ob al N e two rk Com mc ’n s, In c . v . D ob rin , No.120402/00, slip op. at 19 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. J uly 1, 2002). 20 Af

te r c on du c tin g furth er p ro c e e din g s in wh ic h G lob a l w a s a ff

or de d th e op po rt

un ity to 21 respond, the D oI TT ag ain reje cted Global’s fra nchise reque st. I n its Mar ch 11, 2005 deter mination,5 1 the DoI TT explained: 2 [T]he re are mul tip le ind e pe nd e nt ba se s fo r no t pr op os ing the awa rd of a fr anc his e to 3 Gl ob a l . . . : ( 1) Gl ob a l e sta bli sh e d a sig nifica nt p art of its bu sin e ss t

hr ou g h it s u se 4 of o r g an iz e d c r im e s o ld ie r s ; ( 2 ) G lo b a l h a s d e f r a u d e d p r o p e rty o w n e r s who 5 a

uth or ize d u se of

pr op e rt y fo r G lob a l PPT s; and

(3 ) G lob a l ha s b e e n r e pe a te dly 6 de lin qu e nt i n th e pa y me nt o f r e g istry

fe e s and thu s c ann ot b e re lia

bly tr us te d to 7 tim e ly

pa y fr anc his e c omp e ns a tio n a nd a lso ha s si g nif

ic ant unp a id f

ine s r e la te d to its 8 p ayp h o n e o p e r a t i o n s t h a tr e m a i np aya b l e t o t h e C i t y. 9 The DoI TT also spec ifically noted that “eve n if Massie did dive st himself more fully from Global 10 [t han mer ely withdrawing from day -to-day operations] , the nature of t he C ity ’s justifiable conc erns 1 1 about Global w o u ld n o t b e a d e qu a te ly

r e s o lv e d ” b e c a

u s e o f “ th e in ti mate inv o lv e me n t o f G lo bal 12 its e lf

wi th o rg anize d c ri me ” and “ the fa c t tha t Glob a l ha s f a ile d to tim e ly

pa y fi ne s o we d to the City 13 and has r epea

tedly been late in its reg istry

pay ments.” 1 4 Gl o b al aga i n ch al l en ged

t h e C o mm i s s i o n er ’s d et er

m i n a t i o nt h r o u g h anA rt i c l e 7 8 p r o c e ed i n g. 15 I n a dec ision dated Novembe r 28, 2005, the Ne w York Supreme Court (F einman, J .), denie d 16 Global’s petition on the m erits. The court held t hat t he DoI TT had lawfully exercised its discre tion 17 in its Marc h 11, 2005 decision and Global’s due proce ss r ights had no t b ee n v iolated. Global 18 Commc’ns, I

nc. v. M enchini , No. 109531/05 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 28, 2005). Global failed to perfe ct 19 an a

pp e a l. 20 Global filed its c omplaint in this law suit on October 7, 2003, and amende d its complaint on 21 J uly

1, 2004, setting f

orth eleve n cause s of ac tion. Th e fi rs t fi ve c la ims a lle g e that th e City ’s PPT 22 regulatory

scheme and its denial of a PPT fr anchise to G lobal violate the TCA, 47 U.S.C. § 253. The 23 sixthand

se ve nth c la ims a lle g e that the City ’s le g a l f ra me wo rk is p re e mpt e d b y

bo th e xistin g stateGl ob a l c on te nd s th a t st a te law p re e mpt ion a pp lie s b e c a

us e the City ’s re g ulator

y sc he me 1 vio la te s N e w Y or

k St a te Pub lic Se rv ic e L aw § 90 (3 )( 1) . Se c tio n 9 0( 3) (1 ) p ro hib its c e rt a in f or ms of re g ulatio ns of

PPT s e rv ic e pr ov ide rs ( e.g. , supervision and investig ation into the ge nera l condition of fra

nchisee s; pre-a

pproval of a

ny assig nment, transfe r, lea se, contra ct or a g ree ment aff ectingPPT franchises) . Global ar g ues that the City ’s sche me attempts to impose such regulations, notwithst anding Section 90(3)( 1)’s e x press prohibition. Global also ar g ues that fe dera l pree mption applies beca use of 47 U.S.C. § 276 which states that FCC re g ulations trump any inconsistent local re quirements re g ardingpay phone service s. I t contends that the City ’s re g ulatory scheme is inconsistent with 47 C .F.R. § 64 .1 33 0( a ), an F CC r e g ulatio n ma nd a tin g that st a te s r e vie w a nd re mov e re g ulatio ns that im po se marke t entry

or exit requirements. Global a sserts that the City ’s fra nchise a nd permit scheme s imp a ir bo th e ntr y and e xit f ro m th e City ’s PPT m ark e t. Gl ob a l a sse rt s th re e a lle g a tio ns of c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio ns : ( 1) the City , b y re fu sin g to 2 g ra nt G lob a l a

fr anc his e and

by or de ri ngit t o s e ll o r r e mov e its PPTs , d e pr ive d G lob a l of its pr op e rt y wi tho ut r e a so na

ble c omp e ns a tio n a

nd du e pr oc e ss o f l aw i n v iol a tio n o f t he F ourt e e nth Amendment; (2) the City has substantially

impaired Globa l’s rig hts under its contrac ts with thi rd parties in violation of the Contrac ts Clause; and (3) the City has violated Globa l’s rig ht of fre e speec h as g uara

nteed by the Fir st Amendment by

ref using to a llow Global to place a dvertising on c ur b- lin e PPTs

. 6 1 law and f

eder al law. The rema ining claims alleg e violations of Global’s constitutional rig hts and

1 2 seek da

mag es, costs, and attorney fee s, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. 2 3 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt , in a dec isi on date d J un e 9, 20 05 , g ra nte d the de fe nd ants ’ m oti on to d ism iss 4 under F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a c laim upon which relief can be g rante d. Global 5 Ne two rk Com mc ’n s, In c . v. City of N e w York, 373 F. Supp. 2d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

. The c ourt ruled 6 that the City ’s denial of Global’s application for a fra nchise fell within the safe harbor exception of 7 Se c tio n 2 53 (c ) o f t he TCA , w hic h p ro vid e s th e City wi th t he a uth or ity to mana g e the pu

bli c ri g hts

8 of-wa

y and re quire fa ir and re asonable compensation. I t also dismis sed all of Globa l’s claims rely ing 9 on pree mption by

state and f

eder al law, a s well as Global’ s claims of constitutional violations.The inappr opriately considere d matters included Ma ssie’s testimony in an unre lated 3 criminal proc eedingand the DoI TT’s dete rmination of Marc h 2005 that Global could not be expected to pay

its obli g ations to the City in a timely

or honest manne r. 7 1 On appeal, t his court vacate d the judg ment and re manded on the g round that the district cour t 2 e rr e d in

“ c on sid e r[i ng ] ma tte rs outs id e pl aintif f’ s c omp la int ” in g ra

nti nga mot ion un de r R ule 3 12(b)( 6). Gl ob al Ne two rk Com mc ’n s, In c . v. City of N e w York , 458 F.3d 150, 156 ( 2d Cir. 2006). 3 4 We ruled that the district cour t should have c onverte d the def endants’ Rule 12( b)(6) motion int o a 5 Rule 56 motion for summary judgme nt and g iven the plaintiff a n opportunity

to contest the matter 6 up on which the de fenda nt’s motion relied. Id . at 158. We also stated that “in r emandingon 7 proce dural g rounds, we e x press no opinion reg ardingthe cor rec tness of the trial c ourt’s ruling s on 8 the meri t s , and it may well be that upon a

motion for summary

judgme nt the court will rea ch the 9 same c onclusion as it did init ially .” Id

. at 156. 10 On remand, the defendants moved for summ ary judgme nt, and the district court gra nted the 11 motion. Gl ob al N e two rk Com mc ’n s, In c . v . Ci ty

of N e w York, 507 F. Supp. 2d 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)

. 12 The district cour

t ruled that the City ’s denial of Global’s PPT fr anchise “fits comforta bly within [ the] 13 safe -har

bor exception” of Sec tion 253(c) of the TCA. It re as o n ed that inherent within the City ’s 14 ri g ht t o r e qu ir e c omp e ns a tio n is “ the re a so na ble e xpe c ta tio n th a t it s c omp e ns a tio n w ill be pa id 15 acc urate ly

in full, on tim e, and w ithout criminal involvement or fra ud” and found that the e vidence 16 su

pp or te d D oI TT ’s de te rm inatio n tha t it c ou ld n ot “ tr

us t G lob a l to pa

y the City ’s c omp e ns a tio n in 17 [a tim ely

or honest] manner.” Id . at 372. The court rejecte d Global’s ar g ument that the City ’s ac tions 1 8 wer e d is c r im in a to r y an d th e r e f

o r e n o t p r o te c te d b y th e s a f e - h ar b o r e xc e p ti o n . I t a ls o reje cted8 1 Global’s cla ims that the Cit y ’s re gu l at ions are pr eempted by state and f

eder al law. F inally , the 2 district co u rt denied a ll of Global’s fe dera l constituti onal claims. This appe al is taken fr om that 3 ru l i n g. 4 DI SCU SSIO N 5 We r e vie w a n a wa rd of su mmar y jud g me nt de novo , and will uphold the judgme nt if the 6 evidenc e, viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the party ag ainst whom it is enter ed, demonstrates 7 that there are no g enuine issues of material fa ct and that the judg ment is warr anted a s a matter of law. 8 Rubens v. M

ason , 527 F.3d 252, 254 ( 2d Cir. 2008). We f ind that the district court cor rec tly g rante d 9 summary

judgme nt in favor of

the def endants on a ll eleven c auses of action. 10 I. Section 253 of the Telecom m uni cations Act 11 Global’s major a rg ument on appea l asserts that the City ’s fra nchise de nial violated Section 12 253 of the TCA. Sec tion 253(a) pr ovides that “[n] o State or loca l s t at u t e o r re gu lation . . . may 13 pr oh ibi t or have the e ff e c t of pr oh ibi tin g the a

bil ity of any e nti ty to p ro vid e any

int e rs ta te or

int ra state 14 t elecommunications service .” 45 U.S.C. § 253(a) . When regulating te lecommunications ser vice 15 pr ov ide rs , a

state or loc a l a uth or ity mus t be ar in min d that “ [a] ma jor purp os e of

the [TCA ] wa s to 16 e nd

loc al te le ph on e mon op oli e s and de ve lop a

natio na l te le c omm

un ic a tio ns po lic y

that st ro ng ly 17 favor ed loca l telephone mar ket competition.” Global Naps, Inc. v. Ve rizon New England, Inc. , 454 18 F.3d 91, 94 ( 2d Cir. 2006). 19 Th e TCAdo e s n ot a lto g e the r d e ny state s a

nd lo caliti e s th e a

bil ity to r e g ulate 20 telecommunication services. On the contra ry , Section 253 provides for a number of “sa fe ha

rbor” 21 exceptions for states a nd local g overnme nts to establish re g ulatory require ments. Among the “sa fe9 1 ha rb or ” e xce pt io ns is a

pr ov isi on

a uth or izin g state and

loc a l g ov e rnme nts to r e g ulate 2 te le c omm

un ic a tio n s e rv ic e s o n p ubli c prope rt y and to c oll e c t c omp e ns a tio n f or its us e , if

c e rt a in 3 pa ra me te rs a re ob se rv e d. Se c tio n 2 53 (c ) p ro vid e s: 4 No t h i n g i nt h i s s ec t i o n af fe ct s t h e au t h o ri t y o f a St at e or l o ca l go v ern m en t t o m an age 5 the publi c ri gh t s -of- way or to requir e fa ir and re asonable compensation from 6 telecommunications provide rs, on a competitively neutra l an d n ondiscriminatory 7 basis, for use of public rig hts-of-wa y on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the 8 compensation required is publicly disclosed by

such g overnme nt. 9 45 U.S.C. § 253(c). 10 The City ’s ac tions in t his case f all within this “saf

e har bor” ex ception. The statutory g rant 11 of authority

to “manag e the public rig hts-of-wa y ” encompasses the rig ht to rejec t an applica nt on the 12 basis of i ts aff

iliation with org anized crime, especia lly upon a demonstrated record of operating the 13 fac iliti es fr audulently , or otherw ise in violation of l aw, with relianc e on orga nized crime to furthe r 14 its business int ere sts. W e conc lude that the City ’s re fusal to g rant Globa l a fra nchise to oper ate on 15 pu

bli c ri ghts -of

-way on the ba sis of

thi s p a st h ist or

y is f ull y wi thi n th e sc op e of

the a uth or ity 16 provided by

Section 253(c)

. 17 Fur

thermore , the authority

under § 253(c) to collect fair and rea sonable c ompensation from 18 te le c omm

un ic a tio ns se rv ic e pr ov ide rs op e ra tin g on City pr op e rt y imp lie s a uth or ity to d e ny a pe rm it 19 to entities whic h

h ave de monstrated lac k of financ ial responsibility and have prac ticed fr aud to eva de 20 the ir

fi na nc ia l ob lig a tio ns . G lob a l ha s a n und isp ute d p a st his tor

y of de fr a ud ingoth e r p art ie s w ith 21 wh om i t c on tr a c te d to op e rate PPTs on the ir pr op e rt y and be ingde lin qu e nt o n p ay ing fe e s o we d to 22 the City . The City undoubtedly

had a le g itimate conce rn about its a bility to c ollect the compe nsation 23 to w hic h it is e nti tle d. We c on c lud e that th e City ’s re fu sa l to g ra nt G lob a l a

fr anc his e on

the ba sis10 1 of this conce rn is authorized by the “sa fe ha

rbor” exception of Section 253(c)

. 2 Gl ob a l argue s that the City c ann ot c la im the be ne fi t of the “ sa fe ha rb or ” e xce pti on

be c a us e 3 it has not awar ded PPT franc hises in a “co mpetitively neutra l and nondiscriminatory” manne r as 4 re qu ir e d b y

Se c tio n 2 53 (c ). To su

pp or t this co nte nti on , Glo ba l poin ts t o in sta nc e s in wh ic h th e City 5 has g rante d fra

nchises to other e ntitie s wh ich had e ng ag ed in illeg al ac tivity , alleg ing that in light 6 of these othe r fr anchise g rants, the de nial of Global’s a pplication constitutes discriminat ory 7 treatment, which disqualifies the City from the Section 253(c) “saf e harbor ” exception. Howeve r, 8 a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d, no ne of

the se ins tanc e s G lob a l ci tes r a ise d c on c e rn s o f c omp a ra ble 9 g r avity

. Global , 5 07 F. Supp. 2d at 373. Be cause Global’s cr iminal hist ory is of a diffe rent a

nd 10 more ser ious order than t hose of the ot her companies that wer e g rante d PPT franchises, the district 11 court wa s justified in concluding that the C ity ’s denial of Global’s fra nchise was within the scope 12 of § 253(c )’s saf

e har bor. 13 Global contends that our dec ision in TCG New Y ork, Inc . v. City of W

hite Plains , 305 F.3d 14 67 (2 d Cir. 20 02 ), “ c omp e ls the c on c lus ion that th e City ’s laws , r e g ulatio ns , a nd re qu ir e me nts 15 regulating the provision of telec ommunications service via PPTs vi olate” the TCA. We disag ree . 16 Our re asons in TCG for invalidating aspects of the W hite Plains ordinanc e have no bear ing on the 17 prese nt case

. 18 I n TCG , we f ound that conditions imposed by Whit e Plains in gra

nting a fra nchise ha d “the 19 eff

ect of prohibiting the ability of an[] entity to pr ovide . . . telec ommunications service ,” and thus 20 would violate § 253(a ), unless they fell within the “saf

e har bor” e x ception provide d by § 253(c)

. Id

. 21 a t 76 -7 7. As to va ri ou s pr ov isi on s of

the Whit e Pla ins or din anc e , w e ru le d th a t th e y did no t c ome11 1 wi thi n th e bo un da

ri e s a llo we d b y

the sa fe ha

rb or . Wh ile the sa fe ha

rb or pr ov isi on a llo ws a loc a lity 2 to char g e “f

air a nd rea sonable c ompensation . . . for use of public rig hts-of-wa y ,” the compensation 3 char g ed must be on a “ competitively neutra l and nondiscriminatory basis.” 47 U.S.C. § 253(c)

. 4 B e c a

us e Whit e Pla ins c ha

rg e d T CG a

pe rc e nta g e of its g ro ss re ve nu e s, but di d n ot i mpo se the same 5 char g e on anothe r fr anchise e, w e fo u n d that the cha rg e fa iled to satisfy

the re quirement of 6 nondiscrimination. TCG , 305 F.3d at 79. O ther aspec ts of Whit e Plains’s regulatory scheme wer e 7 also not protecte d by the safe harbor

beca use they soug ht to reg ulate matters bey ond the prope r scope 8 of its a uth or ize d r e g ulator

y po wer. S ect io n 253( c ) e sse nti a lly pr ote c ts t he a bil ity of a loc a lity “ to 9 manag e the public rig hts-of-wa y .” Certain provisions of

the White Pl ains scheme wer e desig ned not 10 to regulate use of the public rig ht-of-w ay but r ather to r eg ulate telec ommunications. W e rule d, for 11 example, that Whi te Plains ex cee ded the b o u n d ar ies of its safe harbor when it re quired prior 12 approva l of place ment of telephone s on pr iv ateland , whe n it a sse rt e d the ri g ht t o r e fu se a fr anc his e 13 on the basis of any fac tor which the City deeme d to be in the public intere st, and when it re quired 14 a fr anchise e to waive the rig ht to challeng e the City ’s impositi on of illeg al conditions. Id . at 81-82. 15 We theref

ore r uled that White Pl ains’s re g ulatory scheme violated § 253. 16 That ruling is of no comfort to Global. As f or the a spects of the ruling which depe nded on 17 the conc lusion that White Plains wa s undertaking to r eg ulate telecommunications be y ond the scope 18 of its lawful authority to regulate the use of the publ ic rights-of- way , those have no bear ing on a ny 19 ruling in this case. Ne w York City ’s denial of Global’s fr anchise application is based only on the 20 City ’s rig h t u n d er § 2 53(c) to regulate public rig hts-of-wa y . And as for

the finding that the 21 imposit ion of a fe e on TCG, but not on one of its competitors, fa iled the nondi scrimination12 1 require ment of the saf e har bor, this also i s o f no help. As ex plained above , the City ’s re asons for 2 reje cting Global’s application while acc epting others we re r easona ble and nondiscr iminatory

. 3 Finally , the district c ourt corr ectly ref used to a djudicate Global’s claims that s ever al 4 provisions of the City ’s regulatory scheme , including a dvertising restric tions, viol ate the T CA. The 5 provisions noted by Global affec t only entities operating under a license, and Global, which ha d no 6 license to ope rate , was not af fec ted by them. I t t h er efore lac ked standing to challeng e them. Cf. 7 Schisler v. Sullivan , 3 F .3 d 563 , 56 6 n. 2 (2d C ir . 1 99 3) (r uli ngthat pa

rt ie s th a t ha

ve re c e ive d f

ull 8 relief

and will not be af

fec ted by the re g ulations lack standing ). 9 II. P ree m ption b y F ederal and State Law 10 Global ar g ues that the City ’s re g ulatory scheme is pree mpted by both fede ral and state law. 11 These a

rg uments are without merit. The district co u rt d i smissed Global’s state law pr eemption 12 clai m , h o l d i n g that Global fa iled to make a show ing that the New Y ork State Public Service L aw 13 (“N YSPS L ”) limits the Cit y ’s authority to require compensation for the use of the public rig hts-of14 way . On appeal, Global argues that the district cour t erre d by failing to consider its claim that the 15 City ’s actions are pr eempted by Section 99(2) of

the NYSPSLwhich limits t he author ity to require 16 pre- approva l of transfe rs and a ssignments a ffe cting PPT fra nchises. We find no err or in the district 17 court’s r

uling. F irst, Section 99(2) addr esses only pre- approva l of tran s fe rs an d assig nments; the 18 district court wa s corr ect in f inding that Section 99(2) does not limit the City ’s authority to require 19 compensation for the use of public rig hts-of-wa

y . Second, Global’s rig hts with respec t to transfer s 20 and assig nments are unaff ecte d by the City ’s ac tions. Global has no fra nchise rig ht to t ransf

er or 21 a ssi g n. As fo r i ts PP T e qu ipm e nt i tse lf , th e City ha s n ot i nte rf

e re d w ithGl ob a l’ s o pp or

tun ity to s e llGl ob a l’ s r ig hts are on ly wi th r e sp e c t to the PPT e qu ipm e nt i tse lf . B e c a us e it l a c ks a 4 fra nchise, Globa l has no rig hts with respec t to specific locations on Ci ty proper ty or on building lines aff ectingthe public rig hts-of-wa y . Global is fre e to transf er or assig n its equipment to any entity reg ardle ss of whethe r that entity has a f ranc hise; howeve r, if the tra nsfer ee doe s not have a fr anc his e , it , li ke Gl ob a l, w ill be le g a lly ob lig a te d to re mov e the PPT e qu ipm e nt f ro m Cit y p r o p e rt y an d

b u i l d i n g l i n e s i n t r

u d i n g u p o nt h e p u

b l i c r i g h t s - o f

- w ay. 13 1 it. 4 2 Global ’ s c la im o f p r e e mp ti o n b y f e d e r a l la w is b a s e d o n Se c ti o n 2 7 6 o f th e T CA , which 3 provides that reg ulations issued by the Feder al C ommunications Commi ssion (FCC) pre empt any 4 inc on sis te nt state re qu ir e me nts . 4 7 U .S. C. § 27 6( c ). Gl ob a l argue s th a t th e City ’s re g ulator y sc he me 5 is inconsistent with an FCC reg ulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1330(a), w hich mandate s the remova l of any 6 “re g ulations applicable to pa y phones and pa

y phone ser vice pr oviders that impose marke t entry or 7 exit require ments.” The district c ourt ruled that “ [a] n isolated ref usal to deal with an applicant 8 kno w n f

o r p ay me n t d e f a u lt s an d th e d e f

r a u d in g o f p ay e e s is n o t a ‘ r e g u lato r y b ar r ie r to e n try

and 9 exit ’” of

the ty pe conte mplated by

the FCC re g ulation. Global , 507 F. Supp. 2d at 374. We ag ree . 10 11 I I I . Co n s ti tu ti o n a l Cl a i ms 12 Finally , the district court c orre ctly dismiss ed all of G lobal’s fede ral constitutional claims. 13 First, Global doe s not challeng e on appe al the district cour t’s ruling that the City ’s ac tions did not 14 violate the Contrac ts Clause, U.S. Const . art. 1, § 10. Id

. at 376

. Se c on d, the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re c tly 15 found no vi o lation of Global’s rig ht to due proce ss as Global wa s prese nted with numerous and 16 adequate opportunities, of which i t availed itself, to pr esent its case befor e the DoI TT. Third, the 17 dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y de nie d G lob a l’ s F ir st A me ndme nt c la im a lle g ingvio la tio ns of it s ri g ht t oThis appea l was hea rd bef ore this pane l in tandem with a companion a ppeal unde r 5 docket number

08-0802-c v. I n a sepa

rate summary

order , we dismiss Global’s appe al in the c omp anio n c a se a s mo ot a s a re su lt o f t

he re so lut ion

of thi s a pp e a l. 14 1 provide truthful c ommercia l speec h and non-c ommercia l speec h on its PPT installations because ( 1) 2 “Global is not entitled to have PP T installations on the City ’s public rig hts-of-wa y , so the question 3 of what adver

tising it could place on such installations (if it had them) does not a rise” a nd (2) Globa l 4 fails t o prese nt any evidenc e to support its contention t hat i n denying G lobal’s fra nchise a pplication, 5 the City

acte d with retaliatory

intent. Id . at 375. 6 CO NC LU SION 7 The district cour t’s order g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of the def endants is af

firmed. 5