Hepting

Hepting v. At&t Corporation

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 200806-17132California237 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.

CV-06-00672-VRW

WIRED NEWS; CONDENET INC.,

Intervenors, v.

AT&T CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellant, and

AT&T, INC.,

Defendant,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Intervenor. 

11353 11354 HEPTING v. AT&T CORPORATION

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 No. 06-17137 Herself and All Others Similarly Situated; BENSON B. ROE, Plaintiff D.C. No.

CV-06-00672-VRW

 in related case no. C-06-03467 MMC, Northern District of Plaintiffs-Appellees, California, San Francisco v.

ORDER

AT&T…

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.