The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit granted the partially opposed motion of Charles Mudd, counsel for appellant International Dark-Sky Association, for a continuance of the Nov. 20 oral argument in the association’s consolidated challenges with Dish Network to the FCC's partial approval of SpaceX's second-generation satellite constellation (see 2309190056). The cases are removed from the Nov. 20 oral argument calendar and are rescheduled for oral argument at 9:30 a.m. on Dec. 11, said a D.C. Circuit clerk’s order Friday (dockets 22-1337 and 23-1001). Mudd requested the continuance due to circumstances surrounding the Oct. 9 death of his father (see 2310190006). Counsel for most of the parties consented to Mudd’s request. Counsel for Dish didn’t oppose the continuance, but only if oral argument wasn't moved to a date later than Dec. 13.

Pointing to a lengthened discovery schedule, Dish Network designated entities Northtar Wireless and SNR Wireless are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for permission to refile a motion for partial summary judgment regarding Vermont National Telephone (VTEL) and DOJ allegations of fraud in the FCC's Auction 97. "Addressing the question of actual damages now, before millions of dollars more are spent on discovery, makes good sense," the defendants told the court this week in a motion for leave to reflie (docket 1:15-cv-00728). The DEs said that while the court in September denied a previous motion for partial summary judgment, the scheduling order at that time anticipated only a short time left in discovery. The deadline for discovery has since moved from March 6 to June 6, giving more time for relator VTEL "to impose enormous costs on defendants, third parties, and the United States, via expansive discovery that relator justifies on the ground that this case could result in 'billions of dollars' in actual damages," they said. Resolving the actual damages issue promptly "would enable the parties to avoid the cost and other burdens of expert discovery" concerning that actual damages theory, they said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of Gerald Parks, licensee of AM station WEKC Williamsburg, Kentucky (see 2308310005), said separate per curiam orders Tuesday (docket 23-1078). Parks sought rehearing of the D.C. Circuit panel’s Aug. 10 denial of his petition for mandamus relief (see 2308110028). Parks contends his license remains in effect while his 2012 renewal application is pending at the FCC. His rehearing petitions said the panel declined to enforce the plain language of a provision of the Communications Act that requires the FCC to “continue in effect” all broadcast licenses that remain the subject of renewal applications pending before the agency.

Indian Peak Properties’ Oct. 18 opposition to the FCC’s Oct. 5 motion to dismiss Indian Peak’s petition for review of an over-the-air reception device rule for lack of jurisdiction (see 2310170002) doesn’t “meaningfully dispute our showing” that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction to review only final commission orders, said the FCC’s reply Monday (docket 23-1223) in support of its motion to dismiss. Nor can Indian Peak deny that the commission hasn’t yet “purported to rule on Indian Peak’s application for further administrative review of the two staff-level letter rulings at issue here,” said the reply. Indian Peak’s opposition instead “merely speculates” that the FCC “might have somehow ‘silently disposed of’" its application for review, it said. That speculation “is unfounded and incorrect,” it said. “To avoid any doubt,” the FCC’s counsel “hereby represent once again that the application for review currently remains pending” before the commission, it said. Indian Peak’s petition for review “is incurably premature and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,” said the FCC. The reply noted that Indian Peak’s opposition also complains it didn’t receive a response to two “informal status inquiries” that its counsel emailed to senior FCC officials -- FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel's chief of staff and deputy chief of staff -- who hadn’t been personally involved in this matter. But Indian Peak concedes that it didn’t copy “or otherwise attempt to reach the FCC staff who have previously communicated with its counsel about this matter,” said the reply. Nor did Indian Peak submit anything to the dedicated OTARD@fcc.gov mailbox for matters involving the over-the-air reception device rule at issue, it said. Indian Peak insists that it couldn’t do so because the application for review ultimately will be ruled on by a commissioners' vote, it said. But the need for a commission vote “in no way precludes FCC staff from receiving or responding to status inquiries,” it said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit scheduled Dec. 14 oral argument at 9:30 a.m. EST in the consolidated petitions of Hikvision USA (docket 23-1032) and Dahua Technology USA (docket 23-1073) to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring the authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security (see 2303200023), said a clerk’s order Friday. Both petitions allege the order violates the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, that it was arbitrary and capricious, and that it wasn’t supported by substantial evidence.

BIU’s request for judicial review of an FCC Enforcement Bureau dismissal of satellite company Spectrum Five’s complaint against Intelsat (see 2306280034) is "incurably premature" because the petitioner first needs to ask the FCC to review that order, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel ordered last week (docket 23-1163) in a one-page decision. Deciding were Judges Karen Henderson, Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan.

Charles Mudd, counsel for the International Dark-Sky Association, seeks a continuance of the Nov. 20 oral argument before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the association’s consolidated challenges with Dish Network to the FCC's partial approval of SpaceX's second-generation satellite constellation (see 2309190056), said his partially opposed motion Wednesday (dockets 22-1337, 23-1001). Mudd’s father died Oct. 9, and his family is planning the arrangements for a memorial service to occur during the weekend of Nov. 19, with “some events and matters” spilling over into Thanksgiving week, said his motion. Mudd “is and will be principally involved in these events and related activities,” it said. Mudd’s colleagues at Mudd Law in Chicago are unable to present argument Nov. 20 because they aren’t admitted to practice before the D.C. Circuit and don’t possess Mudd’s “depth of knowledge in the subject matter at issue,” it said. Counsel for Dish doesn’t oppose the continuance, but only if oral argument isn’t moved to a date later than Dec. 13, it said. Counsel for intervenor SpaceX also doesn’t oppose the motion, but is unavailable for oral argument during the weeks of Nov. 27 and Dec. 4, it said. The remaining parties don’t oppose the requested relief, it said. Dish submitted a response to Mudd's motion Thursday, offering what it called "two clarifications." One is that Dish and SpaceX both agreed to an earlier oral argument date to be set during the week of Nov. 12, it said. The other is that Dish opposes an oral argument date later than Dec. 13 "because of the importance of this case" to Dish and its millions of satellite television subscribers, it said. Dish previously consented to a two-week extension for Dark-Sky to file its reply brief, it said. Calendaring the oral argument beyond Dec. 13 would "unfairly prejudice" Dish and its customers, it said. Dish did say that it "has extended its sympathy" to Mudd "for the sad events set forth" in his motion.

Consumer advocates and industry groups urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to deny Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's Q1 2023 USF contribution factor in filings posted last week in docket 23-1091 (see 2304060042). Consumers' Research's brief "substantially mischaracterizes the roles that the FCC and [Universal Service Administrative Co.] perform in administering the universal service program," said Public Knowledge. Petitioners "avoid relevant precedent by creating false lines delineating when courts should apply different standards of the intelligible principle test," said a joint filing from USTelecom, NTCA, the Competitive Carriers Association, Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Caolition, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, and MediaJustice, the groups said.

Consumers' Research filed its second challenge of the FCC's quarterly USF contribution factor in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Monday. Oral argument for its challenge of the Q1 2022 contribution factor was heard during an en banc hearing in September (see 2309190072). In a new challenge of the Q4 2023 contribution factor, the group said the USF factor is an illegal tax and should be rejected. The petition was posted Tuesday in case 23-60525.

The FCC has 90 days to either complete the 2018 quadrennial review or show cause why the NAB’s petition for mandamus shouldn’t be granted, said an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Thursday evening. The order doesn’t grant NAB’s petition for mandamus but defers it until the 90-day period. Broadcast industry officials told us the court’s urging the agency to soon complete the 2018 QR is the result they wanted. The FCC didn’t immediately comment, but the agency had argued that its delay in completing the QR was justified.