Hepting
Hepting v. At&t Corportation
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 15, 200706-17131California310 words
Opinion
Opinion
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TASH HEPTING, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; GREGORY HICKS; ERIK KNUTZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; CAROLYN JEWEL, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated; BENSON B. ROE, Plaintiff in related case no.
C-06-03467 MMC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, No. 06-17132 and D.C. No.
WIRED NEWS; CONDENET INC., CV-06-00672-VRW
Intervenors, v.
AT&T CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant, and
AT&T, INC.,
Defendant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Intervenor.
14985 14986 HEPTING v. AT&T CORP.
TASH HEPTING, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated; GREGORY HICKS; ERIK KNUTZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; CAROLYN JEWEL, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated; BENSON B. ROE, Plaintiff in related case no. No. 06-17137
C-06-03467 MMC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No.
CV-06-00672-VRW
v.