PRECEDENTIAL
             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                  FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                       _____________

                           No. 18-1831
                          _____________

                  T MOBILE NORTHEAST LLC,
                                Appellant

                                 v.

         CITY OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE;
CITY OF WILMINGTON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                   _____________

           On Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the District of Delaware
                      (D.C. No. 1-16-cv-01108)
             District Judge: Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno
                          _______________

                             Argued
                        September 12, 2018

Before: JORDAN, NYGAARD, and VANASKIE, * Circuit Judge
                (Filed: January 10, 2019)


       *
         The Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie retired from the
Court on January 1, 2019 after the argument and conference
in this case, but before the filing of the opinion. This opinion
is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 

(d) and Third Circuit I.O.P. Chapter 12.
                        _______________

Thomas S. Thompson [ARGUED]
Davis Wright Tremaine
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Ste. 800
Washington, DC 20006

Counsel for Appellant

Joseph Van Eaton [ARGUED]
Best Best & Krieger
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue
Ste. 5300
Washington, DC 20006

Counsel for Appellees
                        _______________

                  OPINION OF THE COURT
                      _______________


JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

      No one likes bad cell phone reception or slow
streaming data on their smartphone, but that does not mean
anyone wants a cellular antenna in their neighborhood, which
is why there are zoning battles like the one central to this
case.

      T Mobile Northeast LLC (“T Mobile”), a wireless
telecommunications service provider, applied to the Zoning
Board of Adjustment (“ZBA”) of the City of Wilmington,
Delaware for permission to erect an antenna in the City. The




                              2
ZBA said no. So, relying on a provision of federal law that
allows a disappointed wireless service provider like T Mobile
to seek review in a district court “within 30 days after” a
zoning     authority’s     “final     action,”   

(c)(7)(B)(v), T Mobile filed suit. After the case had
proceeded for over a year, however, the District Court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that
because T Mobile filed its complaint before the ZBA released
a written decision confirming an earlier oral rejection of the
zoning application, the claim was not ripe. And, since
T Mobile did not supplement its complaint to include the
ZBA’s written decision within 30 days of its issuance, the
Court also concluded that relation back could not remedy the
ripeness defect. The District Court thus granted the City’s
motion for summary judgment.

       T Mobile now appeals. It argues that its complaint
was not premature or, in the alternative, that its supplemental
pleading cured any ripeness problem. We agree that the grant
of summary judgment was improper and, for the reasons that
follow, will remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

I.    BACKGROUND

      A.     Statutory Framework

       This dispute is governed by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (“TCA”), which amended the Federal
Communications Act of 1934 and includes provisions on
mobile phone services. Pub. L. No. 104-104, §§ 1, 704, 

, 56, 151 (1996); 

. Passed to
“encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications




                              3
technologies,” Preamble, 110 Stat. at 56, the TCA provides
for expedited review in federal court of a denial of permission
to build a cell phone antenna, id. § 704, 110 Stat. at 151-52.
Such review is a “benefit Congres