Cellphone Termination Fee Cases
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SIMONS, J.
Appellants Sprint Spectrum, L.P., and Wirelessco, L.P. (hereafter Sprint), are defendants in the present class action relating to Sprint’s practice of locking its cell phone handsets, which prevents the use of the phones on other service providers’ networks. Sprint appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing the action pursuant to the parties’ settlement and awarding attorney fees to counsel for cross-appellants, named class plaintiffs Katherine Zill, William MacKenzie, and Linda MacKenzie (hereafter plaintiffs). Sprint contends the trial court erred in refusing to…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Liteky v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Staton v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Evans v. Jeff D. Ex Rel. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Ellis v. Toshiba America Information Systems., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Nordstrom Commission CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Barnes, Crosby, Fitzgerald & Zeman, LLP v. RinglerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Antelope Valley Groundwater CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- Choi v. RestainoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.