Case ID: f3d_527/html/0791-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

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 & Po-peo, 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-Appel-lants.
    D.C. No. CV-03-1398-BTM.
   ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, 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. 
      
      . Judges McKeown and M. Smith are re-cused.