Radio Activo Broadcasting LLC v. American Towers, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:25-cv-01505-JAD-BNW Radio Activo Broadcasting, LLC, 4 Plaintiff Order Granting Temporary Restraining 5 v. Order and Setting Preliminary Injunction Hearing 6 American Towers LLC, et al., [ECF No. 5] 7 Defendants

8 Plaintiff Radio Activo Broadcasting, LLC sues American Towers, LLC and Insite 9 Towers, LLC over their alleged threats to decommission a tower used to broadcast Radio 10 Activo’s commercial radio station in violation of the parties’ license agreement. Radio Activo 11 moves on an emergency basis for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the defendants have cut 12 electrical power to the tower and have threatened to begin dismantling it on Friday, August 22, 13 2025, and that doing so will result in irreparable harm to Radio Activo’s business. It appears 14 from the limiting briefing that Radio Activo is entitled to a temporary restraining order 15 prohibiting the defendants from decommissioning, dismantling, or removing the tower. That 16 restraint will expire at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, September 2, 2025. Radio Activo’s preliminary- 17 injunction motion will be heard in Courtroom 6D of the Lloyd D. George Federal 18 Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd. So., Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, at 2:00 p.m. on September 19 2, 2025. 20 Discussion 21 Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary” remedies 22 that are “never awarded as of right.”1 The Supreme Court clarified in Winter v. Natural 23

1 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). 1 Resources Defense Council, Inc. that, to obtain an injunction, plaintiffs “must establish that [they 2 are] likely to succeed on the merits, that [they are] likely to suffer irreparable injury in the 3 absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [their] favor, and that an 4 injunction is in the public interest.”2 The Ninth Circuit recognizes an additional standard: if 5 “plaintiff[s] can only show that there are ‘serious questions going to the merits’—a lesser

6 showing than likelihood of success on the merits—then a preliminary injunction may still issue if 7 the ‘balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiffs’ favor,’ and the other two Winter factors 8 are satisfied.”3 Under either approach, the starting point is a merits analysis. 9 On the slim record before the court, Radio Activo has shown at least serious questions 10 going to the merits of its breach-of-contract and implied-breach claims. It presents the licensing 11 agreement that governs the use of the at-issue tower, and it provides documentation showing that 12 it has performed its payment obligations under that contract.4 Radio Activo has also alleged 13 irreparable harm. According to Radio Activo’s owner, the defendants’ alleged threats to 14 decommission and dismantle the tower would “force [Radio Activo] to shut down its stations

15 indefinitely.”5 Radio Activo asserts that “[r]elocating a radio broadcasting operation is not a 16 simple matter of changing venues; it involves complex regulatory filings, reengineering signal 17 coverage, and possible loss of licensing rights” that would impose “extraordinary harm and 18 19

20 2 Id. at 20. 21 3 Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 709 F.3d 1281, 1291 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)). 22 4 See ECF No. 5-2 (decl. of Eric Palacios, owner and manager of Radio Activo), ECF No. 5-3 (broadband antenna system license agreement), ECF Nos. 5-4–5-6 (records of Radio Activo 23 licensing payments). 5 ECF No. 5 at 8. 1 uncertainty on” Radio Activo’s ongoing business.6 I find Radio Activo has shown for these 2 preliminary purposes that the potential permanence of dismantling the tower would cause it 3 irreparable harm. But I am not convinced at this stage that the defendants’ decision to cut power 4 to the tower, preventing Radio Activo from broadcasting temporarily, demonstrates irreparable 5 harm. While Radio Activo claims that its inability to continuously broadcast harms its reputation

6 with customers and its relationship with advertisers, it appears that the bulk of such harm can be 7 addressed through monetary damages. Plus, mandatory injunctions that “order[] a responsible 8 party to take action” are “particularly disfavored,” and “district courts should deny such relief 9 unless the facts and law clearly favor the moving party.”7 Radio Activo has not met that 10 heightened standard at this preliminary stage. So I grant a restraining order prohibiting the 11 defendants from decommissioning or dismantling the tower, but I do not direct them to 12 immediately restore power to it. I also conclude that the balance of hardships and the public 13 interest tip sharply in favor of granting that limited relief at least until this matter can be heard. 14 Accordingly,

15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants American Towers, LLC and Insite Towers, 16 LLC are RESTRAINED from decommissioning, dismantling, or removing the tower identified 17 in the parties’ Broadband Antenna System Licensing Agreement. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this restraint will expire at 6:00 p.m. on September 19 2, 2025. 20 21 22

23 6 Id. 7 Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 5] will be heard in in Courtroom 6D of the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, at 2:00 p.m. on September 2, 2025. 4

US. Dist ge Fenner Dorsey 6 Augest’22, 2025 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23