U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008

Sprint Telephony PCS, LP v. County of San Diego

Sprint Telephony PCS, LP v. County of San Diego
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 14, 2008 · Kozinski
527 F.3d 791; 2008 WL 2051371 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Sprint Telephony PCS, LP v. County of San Diego

Opinion

527 F.3d 791 (2008)

SPRINT TELEPHONY PCS, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, and
Pacific Bell Wireless LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, dba Cingular Wireless, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Greg Cox, in his capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego; Dianne Jacob, in her capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego; Pam Slater, in her capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego; Ron Roberts, in his capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego; Bill Horn, in his capacity as supervisor of the County of San Diego, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 05-56076, 05-56435.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 14, 2008.

Daniel T. Pascucci, Nathan R. Hamler, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Thomas D. Bunton, County of San Diego Office of County Counsel, John Sansome, Office of County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

D.C. No. CV-03-1398-BTM.

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused *792 active judges,[1] it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

NOTES

[1] Judges McKeown and M. Smith are recused.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.