IN RE: DISH Wireless L.L.C. Communication Towers Contract Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DISH WIRELESS L.L.C. COMMUNICATION
TOWERS CONTRACT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3182
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel:* Defendant DISH Wireless L.L.C. moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to
centralize this litigation in the District of Colorado. 	This litigation consists of seven actions
pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 	The parties have notified the Panel of eight
related actions pending in six districts.
All responding plaintiffs oppose centralization. Plaintiffs in the Western District of New
York SBA Telecommunications action alternatively suggest centralization in a district in New
York. 	Plaintiff in one of the related actions, Comcast Business Communications, LLC,
alternatively requests that, if we centralize this litigation, we separate and remand its tortious
interference claim against EchoStar Corporation.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we conclude that centralization
is not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. 	These actions arise from sales in 2025 by EchoStar, DISH’s parent
company, of spectrum licenses that had been intended for use in creating a nationwide wireless
network. DISH subsequently declared force majeure with respect to various contracts with owners
and operators of communications towers and providers of network equipment and services. While
there are some common factual questions presented by this litigation, particularly with respect to
the question of whether EchoStar’s sale of its spectrum assets was compelled by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), we are persuaded that centralization is not necessary or
appropriate here.
* Certain Panel members have interests that normally would disqualify them under 28 U.S.C.
§ 455 from participating in the decision of this matter. Accordingly, the Panel invoked the Rule
of Necessity, and all Panel members present participated in the decision of this matter to provide
the forum created by the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp.
Sec. & Derivative Litig. (No. II), 273 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1354 n.* (J.P.M.L. 2003); In re Wireless
Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1357–58 (J.P.M.L.
2001). Judges Karen K. Caldwell and Madeline Cox Arleo were not present and did not participate
in the decision of this matter.
1 An eighth action on the motion was voluntarily dismissed.
Case MDL No. 3182 Document 106 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
The limited factual overlap among these actions is overshadowed by numerous case-
specific factual and legal questions. These actions involve different contracts, with different terms,
between different counterparties, which are subject to different state laws and were entered into at
different times (ranging from 2020 to 2025), and address different services and goods (ranging
from space on cellular towers to space in smaller equipment cages to fiber connectivity to network
and installation services). 	The amounts at issue similarly range from the low six-figures to the
billions. 	The contracts have differing terms with respect to DISH’s anticipated defenses of
frustration of purpose, impossibility, and force majeure. 	Some contracts, for instance, address
whether certain actions by the FCC can constitute a force majeure. The bulk of any discovery is
likely to focus on case-specific issues, such as the negotiations between the parties to each contract.
We are not persuaded that centralized proceedings will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses.
Any centralized proceeding also would be complicated by numerous confidentiality issues.
Several of the complaints in this litigation are subject to protective orders restricting access to
alleged competitively sensitive information contained in the contracts and case documents that cite
those contracts. 	Centralization of these actions involving competitors likely will result in
unnecessary complexity and delay. See, e.g., In re CP4 Fuel Pump Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods.
Liab. Litig., 412 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2019) (“[C]entralizing competing defendants
in the same MDL likely would complicate case management due to the need to protect trade secret
and confidential information.”).
We have often stated that “centralization under Section 1407 should be the last solution
after considered review of all other options.” In re Best Buy Co., Inc., Cal. Song-Beverly Credit
Card Act Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011). This litigation involves only fifteen
actions (including the related actions noticed after the Section 1407 motion was filed). Although
DISH argues that additional actions are likely, the Panel generally is “disinclined to take into
account the mere possibility of future filings in our centralization calculus.” 	In re Lipitor
(Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1376
(J.P.M.L. 2013). While there may be some factual overlap with respect to EchoStar’s sale of the
spectrum licenses and its interaction with the FCC, the contract claims in these actions are not
particularly complex. We are confident the parties and the courts can coordinate their efforts to
avoid any potential duplication or overlap in pretrial proceedings. DISH has not demonstrated that
centralization is the best course for this litigation.
Case MDL No. 3182 Document 106 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is
denied.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Matthew F. Kennelly
Acting Chair
David C. Norton 	Dale A. Kimball
M. Casey Rodgers
Case MDL No. 3182 Document 106 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 4

IN RE: DISH WIRELESS L.L.C. COMMUNICATION
TOWERS CONTRACT LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3182
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
ROYAL GROUP PLAZA, LLC v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C., C.A. No. 2:26−01092
SEIDNER PROPERTIES, LP v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C., C.A. No. 8:26−00082
District of Colorado
AMERICAN TOWERS LLC., ET AL. v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C.,
C.A. No. 1:25−03311
AIRCOMM OF AVON, L.L.C., ET AL. v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C.,
C.A. No. 1:25−03756
Eastern District of New York
DATAVERGE LLC v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C., C.A. No. 1:26−01168
Southern District of New York
SABRE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. DISH WIRELESS LEASING L.L.C.,
C.A. No. 1:26−00209
Western District of New York
SBA TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL. v. DISH WIRELESS L.L.C.,
C.A. No. 1:26−00218
Case MDL No. 3182 Document 106 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 4