Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591)
tjlong@on'ick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Saeramenio, CA 95814-4497 FILED/ENDORSED
4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900
5 JAN 2 2 2018
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
6 stephanie.Iee(^orrick.com By: F. Toscano
Deputy Clerk
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017
;8 Telephone: (213)629-2020
Facsimile: (213)612-2499
9
Attomeys for Defendant
.10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14
15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No.
of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS
16 situated,
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF
17 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED
18 COMPLAINT
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
inclusive, FAC Filed: June 29, 2017
20 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017
Defendants,
21
TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017
22 others similarly situated.
23 Plaintiff,
24
25 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
26 inclusive,
27 Defendants.
28
DC|-nNDANT IIIIALI11 NE; r OF CAUFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWUR TO I'LAINTIFh'S' CONSOLIDA1 ED COMPLAINT
1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby answers the unverified
2 Consolidated Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana
3 ("Plaintiffs") as follows:
4 GENERAL DENIAL
5 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally denies each
6 and every material allegation of the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs, the proposed class
7 or any allegedly aggrieved cmptoycc(s) have been damaged in the manner or amount alleged, or in
8 any manner or amount.
9 DEFENSES
10 1. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein,
11 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state a
12 claim upon which relief may be granted.
13 2. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, no
14 conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or legal cause oflhe damages, if any,
15 suffered by Plaintiffs, the purported class and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s).
16 3. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein,
17 Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs, the purported class and any allegedly aggrieved
18 employec(s) released, relinquished and/or waived any right to any of the claims upon which they
19 now seek relief, those claims are barred.
20 4. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant
21 alleges that Plaintiffs, the purported "Exempt Class" and any allegedly aggrieved employcc(s)
22 belonging lo the purported "Exempt Class" failed to comply with Labor Code sections 2854,2856,
23 2858 and 2859, respectively, to the extent that they failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the
24 performance of their duties, failed to substantially comply with the reasonable directions of their
25 employer, and failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill in performing their job duties.
26 5. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, the claims
27 of Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved employec(s) arc limited lo the extent
28
1
DEFENDANT IIEAL111 NIH" OF CALII ORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER ID PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMI'LAIN I
1 that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to Code of
2 Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340(a), and Business and Professions Code section 17208.
3 6. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein,
4 Defendant alleges that the claims of Plaintiffs, purported class members and/or any allegedly
5 aggrieved employee(s) are barred, in whole or in part, by ihe doctrine of res judicata and/or
6 collateral estoppel.
7 7. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant
8 alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s)
9 unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the prejudice of Defendant, the Complaint and each
10 cause of action therein is barred by the doctrine of laches.
11 8. As a separate defense to the Complaint and theflfthcause of action, Defendant
12 contends that if Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and/or purported class members any amounts
13 due, which Defendant denies, such failure to pay was not willful within the meaning of section 203
14 ofthe Labor Code. Any nonpayment of wages alleged in the Complaint was not willful and/or
15 there is a good faith dispute as to whether Plaintiffs and/or purported class members were owed
16 any wages. As such, waiting time penalties cannot be ordered as any alleged violation of the wage
17 payment statutes was not willful and/or there was a good faith dispute as to whether any wages
18 were owed.
19 9. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the sixth cause of action, Defendant is
20 not unjustly enriched.
21 10. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs' and
22 the purported class' recovery is barred in whole or in part by their own unclean hands and by the
23 doclnnc oHnpari delicio.
24 11. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action tlierein, to the extent
25 Defendant is not afforded the opportunity to present individualized defenses to Plaintiffs', the
26 purported class', and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s) claims and alleged damages,
27 adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide and representative basis violates Defendant's right
28 to due process and a jury trial and is barred by the Rules Enabling Act.
-2-
DI-FENDANT tlEALn i NET OFCALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAIN I IFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
1 12. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein. Defendant
2 alleges that recovery in this action by Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved
3 employee(s) is barred in whole or in part by their failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence
4 to mitigate any alleged harm suffered by them.
5 13. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, the
6 Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to justify injunctive or other equitable relief.
7 14. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action for relief therein,
8 Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the legalrightsor interests of others.
9 15. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein. Plaintiffs
10 cannot satisfy the requirements for a class and/or representative action.
11 16. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and
12 sixth causes of action, the alleged damages to Plaintiffs and the purported class are barred to the
13 extent that they are de minimis.
14 17. As a separate defense to the Complaint and as to each cause of action therein,
15 Defendant did not employ Plaintiffs, the purported class members or the allegedly aggrieved
16 employees.
17 18. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein,
18 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and the purported "Exempt Class" are properiy classified as
19 exempt from all or part of the applicable wage and hour laws.
20 19. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the Court
21 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to the extent that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative
22 remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
23 20. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action. Defendant
24 asserts that, to the extent the claims oflhe Plaintiffs and the allegedly aggrieved employcc(s) ihcy
25 purport to represent seek to recover civil penalties that are disproportionate to the actual harm
26 suffered, if any, including but not limited to civil penalties under Labor Code sections 2699 ef seq.,
27 an award of civil penalties under the circumstances of this case would constitute an excessive (Inc
28
3-
DEFENDANT HEAL TH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDA lED COMKAIN T
1 and otherudse would be in violation bf Defendant's due process and other rights under the United
2 States and Califomia Constitutions.
3 21. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs,
4 on their own behalf and/or on behalf of any allegedly aggrieved employee(s) as defmed in the
5 Complaint, are not entitled to recover any civil penalties because under the circumstances of this
6 case, any such recovery would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory.
7 22. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action. Plaintiffs
8 and the allegedly aggrieved employee(s) they purport to represent are not entitled to seek penalties
9 beyond the "initial violation" as described in Labor Code section 2699(0(2).
10 23. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs
11 are not "aggrieved employees" as described in Labor Code section 2699(c) and therefore cannot be
12 a representative of the claims of allegedly aggrieved employee(s).
13 24. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the claims
14 in the Complaint are barred to the extent that they seek to recover penalties on behalf of individuals
15 who are not "aggrieved employee(s)" as described in Labor Code section 2699(c).
16 25. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs
17 are nol proper PAGA representatives to seek relief on behalf of allegedly aggrieved employee(s).
18 Furthermore, Plaintiffs' alleged claims are not representative of the claims for violation of the
19 Labor Code of other present and former employees of Defendant or allegedly aggrieved
20 employee(s).
21 26. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the claims
22 alleged in the Complaint may not be maintained as a PAGA representative action because the
23 claims arc unmanageable and impracticable and require individual assessments that arc improper
24 for a PAGA representative action.
25 27. Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as
26 to whether it has any additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right
27 to assert addilional defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate.
28
4-
DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIl-ORNIA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' C0NS0LIDA1 ED COMPLAIN I
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Defendant prays that the Court grant the following relief:
3 1. That the Complaint be dismissed with'prejudice and that Plaintiffs lake nothing
4 thereby;
5 2. That the purported class not be certified;
6 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant on all claims;
7 4. That Defendant be awarded its attomeys' fees and costs of suit; and
8 5. For such olher and further relief as this Court may deem proper.
9
10 Dated: January 22,2018 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
11
12 By:
STEPHANIE d5tIL LEE
Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT 1 lEALTI I NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDA TED COMPLAIN^F
1 PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL
2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business address is
3 Orrick, Hcrrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA
4 90017-5855. On January 22,2018,1 served the following documenl(s):
5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED
6 COMPLAINT
7 on the interested parties in this action by placing true and correct copies thereof in sealed
8 envelope(s) addressed as follows:
^ Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
,^ iBlumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Setareh Law Group
2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907
11 La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
12
13
I deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at
14
a facility regularly maintained by the United Slales Postal Service at Los Angeles, Califomia on
15
the date indicated above.
16
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the above is
17
true and correct.
18
Executed on January 22,2018, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
19
20
21 Susan Totin
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4l42-(il59-0S-<3.l 'J^
PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL
LAW;-ftND.MOTiOH DROP BOX''
im mZZ PH 2:53
GDSSC GOURTHOUSE.
SliPERtOR COURT
CF CAlJFORNi.fli
SACR.fi.M£HTO COUHTY.
Preview
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BAR NO. 137591) tjlong@on'ick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Saeramenio, CA 95814-4497 FILED/ENDORSED 4 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 5 JAN 2 2 2018 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) 6 stephanie.Iee(^orrick.com By: F. Toscano Deputy Clerk ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, Califomia 90017 ;8 Telephone: (213)629-2020 Facsimile: (213)612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant .10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 15 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly 34-2017-00210560-CU-OE-GDS 16 situated, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF 17 CALIFORNIA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED 18 COMPLAINT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 19 Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 inclusive, FAC Filed: June 29, 2017 20 Consolidated Complaint Filed: Dec. 21,2017 Defendants, 21 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all Complaint Filed: August 1, 2017 22 others similarly situated. 23 Plaintiff, 24 25 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, 26 inclusive, 27 Defendants. 28 DC|-nNDANT IIIIALI11 NE; r OF CAUFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWUR TO I'LAINTIFh'S' CONSOLIDA1 ED COMPLAINT 1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby answers the unverified 2 Consolidated Complaint ("Complaint") filed by Plaintiffs Andrea Spears and Tomas R. Arana 3 ("Plaintiffs") as follows: 4 GENERAL DENIAL 5 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), Defendant generally denies each 6 and every material allegation of the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiffs, the proposed class 7 or any allegedly aggrieved cmptoycc(s) have been damaged in the manner or amount alleged, or in 8 any manner or amount. 9 DEFENSES 10 1. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, 11 Defendant alleges that the Complaint, and each purported cause of action therein, fails to state a 12 claim upon which relief may be granted. 13 2. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, no 14 conduct by or attributable to Defendant was the cause in fact or legal cause oflhe damages, if any, 15 suffered by Plaintiffs, the purported class and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s). 16 3. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, 17 Defendant alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs, the purported class and any allegedly aggrieved 18 employec(s) released, relinquished and/or waived any right to any of the claims upon which they 19 now seek relief, those claims are barred. 20 4. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant 21 alleges that Plaintiffs, the purported "Exempt Class" and any allegedly aggrieved employcc(s) 22 belonging lo the purported "Exempt Class" failed to comply with Labor Code sections 2854,2856, 23 2858 and 2859, respectively, to the extent that they failed to use ordinary care and diligence in the 24 performance of their duties, failed to substantially comply with the reasonable directions of their 25 employer, and failed to exercise a reasonable degree of skill in performing their job duties. 26 5. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, the claims 27 of Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved employec(s) arc limited lo the extent 28 1 DEFENDANT IIEAL111 NIH" OF CALII ORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER ID PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMI'LAIN I 1 that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to Code of 2 Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340(a), and Business and Professions Code section 17208. 3 6. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, 4 Defendant alleges that the claims of Plaintiffs, purported class members and/or any allegedly 5 aggrieved employee(s) are barred, in whole or in part, by ihe doctrine of res judicata and/or 6 collateral estoppel. 7 7. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein, Defendant 8 alleges that, to the extent Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s) 9 unreasonably delayed in bringing this action to the prejudice of Defendant, the Complaint and each 10 cause of action therein is barred by the doctrine of laches. 11 8. As a separate defense to the Complaint and theflfthcause of action, Defendant 12 contends that if Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and/or purported class members any amounts 13 due, which Defendant denies, such failure to pay was not willful within the meaning of section 203 14 ofthe Labor Code. Any nonpayment of wages alleged in the Complaint was not willful and/or 15 there is a good faith dispute as to whether Plaintiffs and/or purported class members were owed 16 any wages. As such, waiting time penalties cannot be ordered as any alleged violation of the wage 17 payment statutes was not willful and/or there was a good faith dispute as to whether any wages 18 were owed. 19 9. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the sixth cause of action, Defendant is 20 not unjustly enriched. 21 10. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the sixth cause of action, Plaintiffs' and 22 the purported class' recovery is barred in whole or in part by their own unclean hands and by the 23 doclnnc oHnpari delicio. 24 11. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action tlierein, to the extent 25 Defendant is not afforded the opportunity to present individualized defenses to Plaintiffs', the 26 purported class', and any allegedly aggrieved employee(s) claims and alleged damages, 27 adjudication of Plaintiffs' claims on a class-wide and representative basis violates Defendant's right 28 to due process and a jury trial and is barred by the Rules Enabling Act. -2- DI-FENDANT tlEALn i NET OFCALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAIN I IFFS' CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT 1 12. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein. Defendant 2 alleges that recovery in this action by Plaintiffs, the purported class, and any allegedly aggrieved 3 employee(s) is barred in whole or in part by their failure to exercise reasonable care and diligence 4 to mitigate any alleged harm suffered by them. 5 13. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, the 6 Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to justify injunctive or other equitable relief. 7 14. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action for relief therein, 8 Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the legalrightsor interests of others. 9 15. As a separate defense to the Complaint and each cause of action therein. Plaintiffs 10 cannot satisfy the requirements for a class and/or representative action. 11 16. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and 12 sixth causes of action, the alleged damages to Plaintiffs and the purported class are barred to the 13 extent that they are de minimis. 14 17. As a separate defense to the Complaint and as to each cause of action therein, 15 Defendant did not employ Plaintiffs, the purported class members or the allegedly aggrieved 16 employees. 17 18. As a separate defense to the Complaint and to each cause of action therein, 18 Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs and the purported "Exempt Class" are properiy classified as 19 exempt from all or part of the applicable wage and hour laws. 20 19. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the Court 21 lacks subject matter jurisdiction to the extent that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative 22 remedies under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). 23 20. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action. Defendant 24 asserts that, to the extent the claims oflhe Plaintiffs and the allegedly aggrieved employcc(s) ihcy 25 purport to represent seek to recover civil penalties that are disproportionate to the actual harm 26 suffered, if any, including but not limited to civil penalties under Labor Code sections 2699 ef seq., 27 an award of civil penalties under the circumstances of this case would constitute an excessive (Inc 28 3- DEFENDANT HEAL TH NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDA lED COMKAIN T 1 and otherudse would be in violation bf Defendant's due process and other rights under the United 2 States and Califomia Constitutions. 3 21. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs, 4 on their own behalf and/or on behalf of any allegedly aggrieved employee(s) as defmed in the 5 Complaint, are not entitled to recover any civil penalties because under the circumstances of this 6 case, any such recovery would be unjust, arbitrary and oppressive, or confiscatory. 7 22. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action. Plaintiffs 8 and the allegedly aggrieved employee(s) they purport to represent are not entitled to seek penalties 9 beyond the "initial violation" as described in Labor Code section 2699(0(2). 10 23. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs 11 are not "aggrieved employees" as described in Labor Code section 2699(c) and therefore cannot be 12 a representative of the claims of allegedly aggrieved employee(s). 13 24. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the claims 14 in the Complaint are barred to the extent that they seek to recover penalties on behalf of individuals 15 who are not "aggrieved employee(s)" as described in Labor Code section 2699(c). 16 25. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, Plaintiffs 17 are nol proper PAGA representatives to seek relief on behalf of allegedly aggrieved employee(s). 18 Furthermore, Plaintiffs' alleged claims are not representative of the claims for violation of the 19 Labor Code of other present and former employees of Defendant or allegedly aggrieved 20 employee(s). 21 26. As a separate defense to the Complaint and the seventh cause of action, the claims 22 alleged in the Complaint may not be maintained as a PAGA representative action because the 23 claims arc unmanageable and impracticable and require individual assessments that arc improper 24 for a PAGA representative action. 25 27. Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information on which to form a belief as 26 to whether it has any additional, as yet unstated, defenses available. Defendant reserves the right 27 to assert addilional defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate. 28 4- DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIl-ORNIA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' C0NS0LIDA1 ED COMPLAIN I 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 2 Defendant prays that the Court grant the following relief: 3 1. That the Complaint be dismissed with'prejudice and that Plaintiffs lake nothing 4 thereby; 5 2. That the purported class not be certified; 6 3. That judgment be entered in favor of Defendant on all claims; 7 4. That Defendant be awarded its attomeys' fees and costs of suit; and 8 5. For such olher and further relief as this Court may deem proper. 9 10 Dated: January 22,2018 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 11 12 By: STEPHANIE d5tIL LEE Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT 1 lEALTI I NET OF CALIFORNIA. INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDA TED COMPLAIN^F 1 PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL 2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business address is 3 Orrick, Hcrrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los Angeles, CA 4 90017-5855. On January 22,2018,1 served the following documenl(s): 5 DEFENDANT HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED 6 COMPLAINT 7 on the interested parties in this action by placing true and correct copies thereof in sealed 8 envelope(s) addressed as follows: ^ Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq. ,^ iBlumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Setareh Law Group 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907 11 La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 12 13 I deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at 14 a facility regularly maintained by the United Slales Postal Service at Los Angeles, Califomia on 15 the date indicated above. 16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the above is 17 true and correct. 18 Executed on January 22,2018, at Los Angeles, Califomia. 19 20 21 Susan Totin 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4l42-(il59-0S-<3.l 'J^ PROOF OF SERVICE VIA U.S. MAIL LAW;-ftND.MOTiOH DROP BOX'' im mZZ PH 2:53 GDSSC GOURTHOUSE. SliPERtOR COURT CF CAlJFORNi.fli SACR.fi.M£HTO COUHTY.