Hepting

Hepting v. At&t Corportation

Good Law
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.

AT&T CORPORATION; AT&T, INC.,

Defendants, and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Intervenor- Appellant.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.