While its state appeal was pending, Jones filed the present action in federal district court, alleging that the City had violated several of Jones' federal statutory and constitutional rights. The district court also granted Jones a preliminary injunction allowing it to lay cable in open trenches in the City. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that Jones was precluded from recovering damages from the City by
47 U.S.C. § 555a(a), which limits remedies against governmental entities regulating cable service to injunctive and declaratory relief. In response, Jones argued that, if
section 555a(a) applied, it resulted in an unconstitutional taking of the cable infrastructure Jones had already installed in the newly incorporated sections of the City. Jones also raised other constitutional challenges to
section 555a(a). After rejecting each of Jones' constitutional challenges to
section 555a(a), the court concluded that, because Jones recently had sold the equipment necessary to service the City and no longer desired to serve the City, its claim for declaratory and injunctive relief was moot. The court granted summary judgment to the City.