Andrews v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 September 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 95-8046,95-8047 and 95-8048,s. 95-8046
• Citation: Andrews v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 1996)
• Parties: , RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9164 Lamar ANDREWS, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; Jerry Harper, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; Josephine Meadows, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated; J.D. Powell, Individually and as class representatives of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendant, Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Bellsouth Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Bellsouth Communications Incorporated, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Bellsouth Communications Systems, Incorporated, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Financial Collection Agencies, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants, U.S. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Mical Communications, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Sweepstakes, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Prize 395BE, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Reward Line, Individually and as representatives of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Value House, Indivi
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1014

95 F.3d 1014

35 Fed.R.Serv.3d 816, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9164

Lamar ANDREWS, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other persons similarly situated; Jerry

Harper, Individually and as class representatives of a class

of all other persons similarly situated; Josephine Meadows,

Individually and as class representatives of a class of all

other persons similarly situated; J.D. Powell, Individually

and as class representatives of a class of all other persons

similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated, Defendant,

Cross-Claimant-Appellant,

Bellsouth Corporation, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Bellsouth Communications Incorporated, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Bellsouth Communications Systems, Incorporated,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Southern Bell Telephone and

Telegraph Company, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other entities similarly situated; Financial

Collection Agencies, Individually and as representatives of

a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

U.S. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated, MCI Telecommunications

Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Mical

Communications, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other entities similarly situated;

Sweepstakes, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Prize 395BE,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Reward Line, Individually and

as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Value House, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Sweeps 900, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Instant 398, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Gift Giveaway,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Fast Cash 398, Individually

and as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Unclaimed Funds, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Service 900, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Control A, Individually and as representatives of a class of

all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

West Interactive Corporation, Defendant, Cross-Defendant.

Lamar ANDREWS, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other persons similarly situated; Jerry

Harper, Individually and as class representatives of a class

of all other persons similarly situated; Josephine Meadows,

Individually and as class representatives of a class of all

other persons similarly situated; J.D. Powell, Individually

and as class representatives of a class of all other persons

similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated, Defendant, Cross-Claimant,

Bellsouth Corporation, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Bellsouth Communications Incorporated, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Bellsouth Communications Systems, Incorporated,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Southern Bell Telephone and

Telegraph Company, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other entities similarly situated; Financial

Collection Agencies, Individually and as representatives of

a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

U.S. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership,

Individually and as representatives of a class of

all other entities similarly situated,

Defendant-Appellant.

MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Mical Communications, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Sweepstakes, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Prize

395BE, Individually and as representatives of a class of all

other entities similarly situated; Reward Line,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Value House, Individually and

as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Sweeps 900, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Instant 398, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated; Gift

Giveaway, Individually and as representatives of a class of

all other entities similarly situated; Fast Cash 398,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Unclaimed Funds, Individually

and as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Service 900, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Control A, Individually and as representatives of

a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

West Interactive Corporation, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated, Defendant, Cross-Defendant.

Lamar ANDREWS, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other persons similarly situated; Jerry

Harper, Individually and as class representatives of a class

of all other persons similarly situated; Josephine Meadows,

Individually and as class representatives of a class of all

other persons similarly situated; J.D. Powell, Individually

and as class representatives of a class of all other persons

similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated, Defendant, Cross-Claimant,

Bellsouth Corporation, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Bellsouth Communications Incorporated, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Bellsouth Communications Systems, Incorporated,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Southern Bell Telephone and

Telegraph Company, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other entities similarly situated; Financial

Collection Agencies, Individually and as representatives of

a class of all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

U.S. Sprint Communications Company Limited Partnership,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; MCI Telecommunications

Corporation, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Mical

Communications, Individually and as representatives of a

class of all other entities similarly situated;

Sweepstakes, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Prize 395BE,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Reward Line, Individually and

as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Value House, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Sweeps 900, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Instant 398, Individually and as representatives of a class

of all other entities similarly situated; Gift Giveaway,

Individually and as representatives of a class of all other

entities similarly situated; Fast Cash 398, Individually

and as representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated; Unclaimed Funds, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities similarly

situated; Service 900, Individually and as representatives

of a class of all other entities similarly situated;

Control A, Individually and as representatives of a class of

all other entities similarly situated, Defendants,

West Interactive Corporation, Individually and as

representatives of a class of all other entities

similarly situated, Defendant,

Cross-Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 95-8046, 95-8047 and 95-8048.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 19, 1996.

James R. Wyrsch, Keith E. Drill, Wyrsch, Atwell, Mirakian, Lee & Hobbs, Kansas City, MO, Julie E. Grimaldi, Kansas City, MO, for U.S. Sprint.

Emmet J. Bondurant, Michael B. Terry, John E. Floyd, M. Jerome Elmore, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, James D. Daniels, Hall, Dickler, Kent, Friedman & Wood, New York City, for West Interactive.

Michael C. Spencer, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, New York City, for Andrews.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before COX and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and PROPST ^*, Senior District Judge.

COX, Circuit Judge.

American Telephone & Telegraph Corporation (AT & T), Sprint Corporation (Sprint), and West-Interactive Corporation (West-Interactive) separately appeal the district court's certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) of classes of plaintiffs, in two related cases, alleging claims relating to hundreds of "900-number" telemarketing programs. We treat these separate appeals in the same opinion because the appellants raise similar issues and appeal the same class...