BARRIE v. INTERVOICE-BRITE, INC.

No. 03-11064.

409 F.3d 653 (2005)

David BARRIE, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Jill C. Richling, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Cary Alan Luskin, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; Debbie Luskin, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERVOICE-BRITE, INC., Daniel D. Hammond; Rob Roy J. Graham; David W. Brandenburg; Gordon H. Givens; Michael J. Polcyn; David A. Berger; Dwain H. Hammond; Harold D. Brown; M. Gregory Smith, Defendants-Appellees, Dominick Capuano, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Intervoice-Brite, Inc., Daniel D. Hammond; Rob Roy J. Graham; David W. Brandenburg; Gordon H. Givens; Michael J. Polcyn; David A. Berger; Dwain H. Hammond; Harold D. Brown; M. Gregory Smith, Defendants-Appellees, Henry Cashman, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Intervoice-Brite, Inc., Daniel D. Hammond; Rob Roy J. Graham; David W. Brandenburg; Gordon H. Givens; Michael J. Polcyn; David A. Berger; Dwain H. Hammond; Harold D. Brown; M. Gregory Smith, Defendants-Appellees, Richard Kearns, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Intervoice-Brite, Inc., Daniel D. Hammond; Rob Roy J. Graham; David W. Brandenburg; Gordon H. Givens; Michael J. Polcyn; David A. Berger; Dwain H. Hammond; Harold D. Brown; M. Gregory Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 12, 2005.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Susan K. Alexander (argued), Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Roger L. Mandel, Stanley, Mandel & Iola, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

G. Luke Ashley (argued), Timothy R. McCormick, Richard Barrett Phillips, Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.


EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:

A. The panel's opinion issued on January 12, 2005 inadvertently made conflicting rulings regarding the allegations contained in paragraphs 38, 59, and 68 of the plaintiffs' complaint. Having duly considered the petition for rehearing, response, and reply, and the appellees' letter submitted pursuant to FED. R.APP. P. 28(j) and the appellants' response thereto, we clarify our ruling by hereby modifying the opinion in the following...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases