IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, D/B/A
AT&T TENNESSEE,
PLAINTIFF,
CASE NO. ______________
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE
AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE; MEGAN
BARRY, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR;
AND MARK STURTEVANT, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS TRANSITIONAL INTERIM DIRECTOR
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
DEFENDANTS.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, doing business as AT&T Tennessee
(“AT&T”), states as follows for its complaint against defendants Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro Nashville”), Megan Barry (in her official
capacity as Mayor of Metro Nashville), and Mark Sturtevant (in his official capacity as
transitional interim Director of Metro Nashville’s Department of Public Works):
NATURE OF THE CASE
1.

On September 20, 2016, Metro Nashville’s Council adopted an ordinance that

purports to permit third parties to perform work on AT&T’s communications network. Under
the new ordinance, where a third party seeks to attach equipment to an electric utility pole in the
rights-of-way and AT&T already has lines or other equipment on the pole, the third party may
remove, alter, and relocate AT&T’s facilities as it deems necessary, upon fifteen days’ notice. If
1
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 18879

 the work would cause or reasonably be expected to cause a customer outage, the third party may
proceed after giving AT&T thirty days’ notice.
2.

AT&T seeks declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to restrain Defendants

from enforcing this new ordinance. The ordinance conflicts with and is preempted by the pole
attachment regulations of the Federal Communications Commission. Further, the ordinance is
invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it conflicts with Metro Nashville’s Charter. In
addition, the ordinance impairs AT&T’s existing contract with Metro Nashville in violation of
the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 20 of the Tennessee
Constitution.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

This action arises under the laws of the United States, including the Contracts

Clause of the federal Constitution (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, cl. 1). The Court has federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. AT&T’s Contracts Clause claim also is
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over AT&T’s
state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
4.

The Court also has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is

complete diversity between the parties, as AT&T is a citizen of Delaware and Texas, and
Defendants are citizens of Tennessee.
5.

The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Among other things, as alleged

further below, the economic value of the rights AT&T seeks to protect exceeds $75,000, and if
relief is denied AT&T will suffer losses in excess of $75,000.
6.

The Court’s authority to grant declaratory relief and related injunctive relief is

based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 because an actual controversy exists.

2
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 18880

 7.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the Metro

Nashville ordinance at issue was enacted and AT&T’s claims arose in this judicial district.
PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, doing business as AT&T

Tennessee, is a limited liability company. At all times relevant, AT&T has been and is qualified
to do business in Tennessee.
9.

Defendant Metro Nashville is a consolidated city-county government organized

pursuant to the provisions of Title 7 of the Tennessee Code, with the capacity to sue and be sued.
10.

Defendant Megan Barry is the Mayor of Metro Nashville. Pursuant to Section

5.01 of Metro Nashville’s Charter, all executive and administrative power of Metro Nashville is
vested in the Office of the Mayor. Defendant Barry is sued in her official capacity only.
11.

Defendant Mark Sturtevant is the transitional interim Director of Metro

Nashville’s Department of Public Works. Pursuant to Section 8.402 of Metro Nashville’s
Charter, the Department of Public Works is responsible for the administration and enforcement
of all laws, ordinances and regulations relating to permits, which includes permits for
encroachments placed in the public rights-of-way. Defendant Sturtevant is sued in his official
capacity only.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
12.

AT&T is a wireline telecommunications carrier that provides telephone and other

communications services in Metro Nashville, using an extensive telecommunications network
that it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, maintain, repair, replace, and
operate.

3
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 18881

 13.

Much of AT&T’s network in Metro Nashville consists of aerial telephone lines

and associated equipment placed upon utility poles, numbering approximately104,000, the vast
majority of which are in the public right-of-way. Approximately 80% of these poles are owned
by Nashville’s municipal electric utility, the Electric Power Board operating under the name
Nashville Electric Service (“NES”). Most of the remaining poles upon which AT&T has
facilities are owned by AT&T.
14.

AT&T attached facilities to NES poles pursuant to a 1958 contract with the City

of Nashville, by and through the Electric Power Board. This contract, which remains in effect
today, sets forth the terms and conditions under which AT&T and NES may attach utility
facilities to poles owned by the other party. A copy of this contract is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
15.

Article VI(B) of the 1958 agreement states in part that “[e]xcept as herein

otherwise expressly provided, each party shall place, maintain, rearrange, transfer and remove its
own attachments.”
16.

On September 20, 2016, Metro Nashville adopted Ordinance No. BL2016-343

(the “Ordinance”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Ordinance amends Title
13 of the Metro Nashville Code of Laws, by adding new Chapter 13.18 titled “Management of
Public Rights-of-Way for Make Ready Work.” Notwithstanding its title, the new Chapter does
not address management of the public rights-of-way; rather, it purports to regulate the terms and
conditions upon which a person can move or rearrange existing communications lines or
equipment owned by a third party on existing utility poles, in order to accommodate that
person’s attachment of new communications lines or equipment.

4
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 18882

 17.

The Ordinance grants an “Attacher” the right to perform all of the “make-ready

work” required to rearrange or relocate the pre-existing physical facilities and pole attachments
of other communications providers (including AT&T). Under the Ordinance, upon the pole
owner’s approval of an attachment application, the Attacher is authorized to “perform Make
Ready by transferring, relocating, rearranging, or altering the Attachments of any Pre-Existing
Third Party User,” using contractors approved by the pole owner if so required by the pole
owner. Thus, once a new Attacher has received NES approval to attach its facilities to an NES
pole, the new Attacher is permitted to transfer, relocate, rearrange, or alter AT&T’s facilities to
accommodate the Attacher’s facilities, without AT&T’s consent.
18.

Further, the Ordinance requires the Attacher to provide the pre-existing user just

fifteen days’ prior notice of the Attacher’s work. If the Attacher concludes its work would cause,
or would reasonably be expected to cause, a customer outage (what the Ordinance calls
“Complex Make Ready” work), the pre-existing user has thirty days to perform the necessary
work, and if it does not complete the work within thirty days the Attacher may perform the work,
even if it requires disrupting service.
19.

The Ordinance thus purports to permit a third party (the Attacher) to temporarily

seize AT&T’s property, and to alter or relocate AT&T’s property, without AT&T’s consent and
with little notice. AT&T would be deprived of an adequate opportunity to assess the potential
for network disruption caused by the alteration or relocation, and to specify and oversee the work
on AT&T’s own facilities to ensure any potential for harm to its network, including harm to the
continuity and quality of service to its customers, is minimized.
20.

The Ordinance also permits an Attacher to rearrange AT&T facilities on NES

poles without regard to AT&T’s standards for work on its facilities. Within thirty days after

5
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 18883

 completing the work, the Attacher must notify AT&T of the work on AT&T’s facilities. AT&T
then has sixty days to inspect the work, and if it does not meet NES standards, AT&T can
demand the work be corrected at the Attacher’s expense. Further, the Attacher must indemnify
NES for any claims made by AT&T, but it is not required to indemnify AT&T for any harm
resulting from the work on AT&T’s facilities.
21.

The pole attachment rights and obligations created by the Ordinance are a drastic

departure from, and conflict with, those set forth in federal regulations promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). The federal Communications Act authorizes
the FCC to “regulate the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such
rates, terms, and conditions are just and reasonable,” and it directs the FCC to “prescribe by rule
regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.” 47 U.S.C. § 224(b)(1), (2).
22.

Under the FCC’s regulations, an entity with existing attachments, including

AT&T, is entitled to prior written notice in the event any make-ready work would affect the
entity’s facilities. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1420(e). Under the FCC’s regulations, the entity with existing
attachments, including AT&T, has up to 60 days (and potentially more, depending upon the type
of facilities and size of the order) to modify its attachments to accommodate a new attacher. 47
C.F.R. § 1.1420(e). Further, under the FCC’s regulation, a new attacher may hire a contractor to
complete the make-ready work itself only if the work has not been completed by the specified
deadline. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1420(i).
23.

The value of AT&T’s right to maintain and operate its plant and conduct its

business in Metro Nashville free from wrongful interference easily exceeds $75,000. AT&T has
facilities on approximately 104,000 poles in the Metro Nashville area, and it has invested
hundreds of millions of dollars in deploying, maintaining, and upgrading these facilities. AT&T

6
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 18884

 has a significant interest in controlling and overseeing its telecommunications network, including
work done on its aerial facilities such as moving those to accommodate another attacher.
AT&T’s aerial facilities in the Metro Nashville area include major fiber transport and copper
feeder cables that serve large numbers of customers and carry large volumes of communications
traffic. If a copper feeder cable were damaged, 1,000 or more residential customers could lose
service, and business customers without redundant service would also lose service. Some of
AT&T’s aerial fiber facilities are used to provide high-capacity switched Ethernet services to
various customers including police and fire stations, and to wireless carriers that use the fiber to
carry wireless traffic to and from their cell towers. Damage to these facilities could knock out
service to emergency responders, and take a cell tower out of service.
24.

Even one instance of improper work on aerial facilities can easily cost AT&T

more than $75,000. AT&T has been sued on multiple occasions for personal injuries and
property damage related to the placement and maintenance of its aerial facilities, and has
resolved other such claims short of litigation. Some such claims have been resolved for more
than $75,000.
25.

Similarly, wholly apart from litigation costs and resulting damages, AT&T would

incur significant service restoration costs in the event of a service outage resulting from a third
party’s work. For example, it could cost well in excess of $75,000 to replace one fiber optic
cable. In addition, under the Ordinance AT&T could bear the costs of correcting the Attacher’s
work where it meets NES standards but does not meet AT&T’s standards.
26.

Further, AT&T estimates that its costs merely of administering the ordinance

would exceed $75,000. In particular, in order to oversee, manage, and conduct the inspections
contemplated by the Ordinance, if a high-volume attacher were to invoke the Ordinance to

7
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 18885

 deploy a communications network AT&T would incur additional labor and associated costs in
excess of $75,000.
27.

The Ordinance also deprives AT&T of the benefits of its 1958 agreement with

Metro Nashville, under which AT&T “shall place, maintain, rearrange, transfer and remove its
own attachments” on NES poles. Nothing in this contract permits Metro Nashville to rearrange
or transfer AT&T’s facilities (except in the event of an emergency) or to grant third parties such
rights.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The Ordinance Is Inconsistent With And Preempted By Federal Law
28.

AT&T hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

27, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
29.

In adopting its pole attachment regulations, the FCC acted upon a developed

record and made findings regarding the reasonableness and appropriateness of its mandated
procedures and timelines. In doing so, the FCC drew specific lines to weigh and balance various
competing interests, including the public interest in giving utilities and telecommunications
carriers sufficient time to perform make-ready work to ensure safety and reliability.
30.

The Ordinance conflicts with the procedures created by the FCC, and upsets the

careful balances struck by the FCC in crafting its pole attachment regulations.
31.

The Ordinance is inconsistent with federal law, including 47 U.S.C. § 224 and the

pole attachment regulations promulgated by the FCC, and thus is preempted by and rendered
invalid and unenforceable by Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
32.

Unless the Court declares the Ordinance invalid and permanently enjoins

Defendants from enforcing it, AT&T will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be redressed by
recovery of damages. For example, AT&T will be forced to comply with a preempted
8
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 18886

 ordinance, will be improperly subjected to regulators at multiple levels of government, and will
suffer a loss of customer goodwill. A permanent injunction will advance the public interest as
defined by Congress and the FCC.
33.

AT&T is entitled to a judgment declaring the Ordinance invalid and

unenforceable, and a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing, or authorizing
any third-parties from acting pursuant to, the Ordinance.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The Ordinance Contravenes Metro Nashville’s Charter In Violation Of State Law
34.

AT&T hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

33, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
35.

As a matter of Tennessee law, the provisions of a municipal charter are mandatory

and must be obeyed. A municipal action is unlawful and ultra vires where it is outside the scope
of the city’s authority under its charter, or where it was not undertaken consistent with
mandatory provisions of its charter.
36.

Under Metro Nashville’s Charter, the Electric Power Board exercises certain

municipal authority separate and apart from the Metro Council. Appendix Three (Article 42), §
1 of Metro Nashville’s Charter authorizes the Nashville government to acquire, “maintain,
improve, operate and regulate . . . an electric system, including distribution system and
substations, together with all necessary or appropriate equipment, appliances and
appurtenances.” Under § 15, the Electric Power Board “shall have full control over the erection,
construction, maintenance and operation of said plants and properties, with full power to make
rules for the control and maintenance of said plants and properties, [and] the manner of
operation.” Section 18 further provides that the Board “shall have exclusive management and
control of the operation of said electric power plant and/or distribution system.”
9
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 18887

 37.

In addition, § 24 makes clear that “neither the mayor, [nor] the metropolitan

council . . . shall have or exercise any authority whatsoever over the electric power board . . .
other and except to the extent herein expressly provided, and the provisions of this article shall
prevail over any conflicting provisions appearing in any other article in this Charter.”
38.

NES poles are part of the NES electric system and properties. Under the Charter

the regulation of the manner of attachments to NES poles is part of the “management” and
“control” over the “operation” of its properties, as well as “rules” for the “control” and “manner
of operation” of its properties. Such matters are committed exclusively to the Board’s authority.
39.

The Mayor and Council of Metro Nashville thus lack authority under the Charter

to regulate the terms and conditions of attachments to the Board’s poles. As a result, the
Ordinance is invalid and ultra vires, to the extent it purports to apply to NES poles.
40.

Unless the Court declares the Ordinance invalid and permanently enjoins

Defendants from enforcing it, AT&T will suffer irreparable harm that cannot be redressed by
recovery of damages. For example, AT&T will be forced to comply with an unlawful ordinance,
will be improperly subjected to interference with its property, network, and ongoing business,
and could suffer a loss of customer goodwill. A permanent injunction will advance the public
interest as defined by Tennessee law.
41.

AT&T is entitled to a judgment declaring the Ordinance invalid and

unenforceable, and a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing, or authorizing
any third-parties from acting pursuant to, the Ordinance.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
The Ordinance Violates the Federal and State Contracts Clauses
42.

AT&T hereby incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through

41, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
10
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 18888

 43.

AT&T has an existing contractual relationship with Metro Nashville that governs

AT&T’s placement and maintenance of its facilities on NES poles located in the public rights-ofway.
44.

Under that contract, AT&T maintains responsibility for placing, maintaining,

rearranging, transferring, and removing its attachments on NES poles. Nothing in the contract
permits Metro Nashville to rearrange or transfer AT&T’s facilities (except in the event of an
emergency) or to grant third parties such rights.
45.

This contract is protected against impairment by the federal and Tennessee

constitutions.
46.

Acting under color of law, Metro Nashville has caused AT&T to suffer a

substantial deprivation of its contract rights in violation of the federal and Tennessee
constitutions. The Ordinance, by purporting to permit third parties to rearrange and transfer
AT&T’s facilities on NES poles, constitutes a substantial and unconstitutional impairment of
AT&T’s contract with Metro Nashville. The Ordinance effectively nullifies important
provisions of the existing contract and imposes new and unexpected limitations and conditions
upon AT&T’s use of NES poles.
47.

By enacting the Ordinance, Metro Nashville has interfered with and impaired its

own contract, subjecting its actions to heightened scrutiny and a more stringent examination
under the Contracts Clause than laws affecting contractual relationships between private parties.
The Ordinance is neither reasonable nor necessary to accomplish Metro Nashville’s purported
public purpose. The Ordinance’s attachment measures are not necessary because there are
existing procedures in place for AT&T to move or rearrange its own facilities where necessary to
accommodate a new attacher. The Ordinance’s attachment measures are not reasonable for the

11
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 18889

 same reason, and because circumstances have not changed substantially since the time Metro
Nashville entered into its contract with AT&T. At that time, it was recognized that AT&T may
from time to time need to move or rearrange its facilities.
48.

AT&T is entitled to a judgment declaring the Ordinance unconstitutional and

unenforceable, and a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing, or authorizing
any third-parties from acting pursuant to, the Ordinance.
49.

AT&T has incurred and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs because of

this proceeding, in amounts that cannot yet be ascertained. These fees and costs are recoverable
in this action under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, AT&T prays for relief against Defendants as follows:
1.

For a declaration and judgment that the Ordinance conflicts with and is preempted
by federal law;

2.

For a declaration and judgment that the Ordinance is unlawful and ultra vires
under Tennessee law, because it was not adopted in accordance the Metro
Nashville’s Charter and exceeds the Council’s authority under that Charter;

3.

For a declaration and judgment that the Ordinance violates the Contracts Clause
of the federal and Tennessee Constitutions;

4.

For a permanent injunction restraining Defendants from enforcing, or authorizing
any third-parties from acting pursuant to, the Ordinance;

5.

For an award of AT&T’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable law; and

6.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

12
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 18890

 Dated: September 22, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William L. Harbison_________
William L. Harbison (No. 7012)
John L. Farringer IV (No. 22783)
SHERRARD ROE VOIGT HARBISON, PLC
150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
(615) 742-4200
bharbison@srvhlaw.com
jfarringer@srvhlaw.com
Christian F. Binnig (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
Hans J. Germann (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 782-0600
cbinnig@mayerbrown.com
hgarmann@mayerbrown.com
Counsel for BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC

13
Case 3:16-mc-09999 Document 719 Filed 09/22/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 18891