Motion for Order to Publish in UFCW & EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST ON BEHALF OF VS. SUTTER HEALTH et al| Trellis.Law

On April 07, 2014 a Request,Application was filed involving a dispute between People Of The State Of California, Ufcw & Employers Benefit Trust On Behalf Of, and Blue Cross Of California Dba Anthem Blue Cross, Eden Medical Center, Mills-Pennisula Health Services, Palo Alto Medical Foundation For Healthcare, Sutter Coast Hospital, Sutter Health, Sutter Health Sacramento, Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region, Sutter Medical Foundation, Sutter West Bay Hospitals, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for ANTITRUST/UNFAIR COMPETITION in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
2 Kathleen Foote
Senior Assistant Attorney General ELECTRONICALLY
3 Michael Jorgenson
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
4 Cheryl Lee Johnson (SBN 66321) County of San Francisco
Esther La (SBN 160706) 07/07/2020
5 Emilio Varanini (SBN 163952) Clerk of the Court
Deputy Attorneys General BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
6 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
7 Tel 415.510.3541 / Fax 415.703.5480
E-mail: Emilio.Varanini@doj.ca.gov
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff, People of the State of
California
9
Richard L. Grossman (SBN 112841)
10 Philip L. Pillsbury Jr. (SBN 072261)
Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP
11 100 Green Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
12 Tel 415.433.8000 / Fax 415.433.4816
Email: UEBT@pillsburycoleman.com
13 Lead Counsel for Plaintiff UFCW & Employers
Benefit Trust and the Class (Additional Counsel not
14 listed)
15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

17 UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust, on behalf Case No. CGC 14-538451
of itself and all others similarly situated Consolidated with
18 Case No. CGC-18-565398
Plaintiffs,
19 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE
vs. REPLY DECLARATIONS OF CONFORTI
20 AND KIERNAN OR, IN THE
Sutter Health, et al., ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST THAT THE
21 COURT CONSIDER THE ATTORNEY
Defendants. GENERAL’S SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC
22 INTEREST DETERMINATION

23 People of the State of California, ex. rel. Date: July 9, 2020
Xavier Becerra, Time: 9:15 am
24 Dept: 304
Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Anne-Christine Massullo
25
vs. Action Filed: April 7, 2014
26
Sutter Health,
27
Defendant.
28

Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 INTRODUCTION

2 “The general rule of motion practice … is that new evidence is not permitted with reply

3 papers …. [T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed

4 in the exceptional case … and if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to

5 respond.” Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., 245 Cal. App. 4th 227, 241 (2016) (citations and internal

6 quotation marks omitted).

7 Plaintiffs object to the new evidence in the Reply Declarations of David Kiernan and

8 James Conforti. They are not only improper, they are irrelevant. See, e.g., Sutter Reply Brief at

9 4:20-24 and 5:5-15 and Objections to Declarations, set forth in the table below. Sutter’s reply
10 declarations purport to offer facts about the impact of COVID-19 on Sutter and on California, but

11 reports on percentage increases in COVID-19 patients in Sutter’s hospitals, and on any surge of

12 COVID-19 more generally in California, are irrelevant to the inquiry before the Court. In the

13 alternative, should the Court wish to consider Sutter’s new factual assertions, Plaintiffs request

14 that the Court also consider the Attorney General’s supplemental public interest determination

15 herein that Sutter’s new facts and statistics are misleading because Sutter relies on percentages of

16 low base numbers without disclosing the base numbers and because Sutter omits additional

17 material information bearing on its assertions.

18 LEGAL STANDARD

19 It is well-established that courts may sustain an objection to facts first presented in a reply
20 or in the alternative may allow a response. See, e.g., Jav v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522,

21 1537-38 (2013) (noting that “[t]he general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new

22 evidence is not permitted with reply papers” but that if it permitted the other party should be

23 given the opportunity to respond); Plenger v. Alza Corp., 11 Cal. App. 4th 349, 362 n.8 (1992)

24 (party opposing motion is entitled to “notice and an opportunity to respond” to new material on

25 reply); see also, e.g., Jacobs v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co., 14 Cal. App. 5th 438,

26 449 (2017) (evidence first presented in a reply may be considered, without raising due process

27 issues, if plaintiffs can object and/or present new evidence in response).

28
2
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 PLAINTIFFS OBJECT TO SUTTER’S NEW EVIDENCE SET OUT IN THE KIERNAN
AND CONFORTI DECLARATIONS AND AT PAGES 4:20-24 AND 5:5-15 OF THE
2 REPLY AS IRRELEVANT

3 Plaintiffs object to the new evidence in the Kiernan and Conforti Reply Declarations

4 because it is not relevant to whether the motion should be granted. The new facts raised by Sutter

5 have no bearing on whether a continuance or stay is needed when the Court’s focus here is on the

6 protection of absent class members and whether the injunctive relief would disserve the public

7 interest. See Opp. at 6-7. Sutter’s presentation of new data concerning recent COVID-19

8 hospitalizations is also irrelevant because, contrary to Sutter’s straw man argument, the Attorney

9 General’s determination never rested on any conclusion that “COVID-19 is under control” (Reply

10 at 4 (citing nothing in Plaintiffs’ Opposition)) or that “the COVID-19 crisis has peaked” (id.

11 (citing nothing)). The statements of Dr. Mark Ghaly, the Secretary of the California Health and

12 Human Services Agency, show how the state has been addressing the ebbs and flows of COVID-

13 19. These government actions were cited as support for the point that COVID-19 is not an

14 appropriate basis for this Court to delay approval of the settlement for multiple reasons, including

15 the fact that the impact of COVID-19 has been, and continues to be, addressed by state and

16 federal policy makers. Opp. at 12-13, 15.

17 Sutter’s new facts set out news reports of an increase in COVID-19 cases in various areas

18 of the state as support for delay to consider possible modifications to the PFJ to address these new

19 cases. But the current increase in hospitalizations, and the magnitude of the current increase,

20 whether elsewhere or in counties in which Sutter operates, are irrelevant as they say nothing

21 about the number of hospitalizations months from now, when, upon a grant of final approval,

22 Sutter can ask for modifications to the injunctive relief if appropriate. See Opp. at 9-10. The

23 Court cannot otherwise order modifications to negotiated injunctive relief requested by one party,

24 but opposed by the other, prior to approval. See People’s Ditch Co. v. Fresno Canal & Irrigation

25 Co., 152 Cal. 87, 89 (1907); see also, e.g., Harris v. Spinall Auto Sales, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 2d

26 215, 219-20 (1962).

28
3
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S SUPPLEMENTAL DETERMINATION IS THAT
SUTTER’S NEW EVIDENCE DOES NOT ALTER HIS CONCLUSIONS
2

3 In the alternative, should the Court wish to consider the facts offered by Sutter for the first

4 time on reply, Plaintiffs respectfully offer the Attorney General’s supplemental determination that

5 a review of Sutter’s new facts and statistics do not affect his conclusion that further delay is not in

6 the public interest.

7 That supplemental determination is based on a supplemental analysis by Professor Glenn

8 Melnick that Sutter’s new evidence about the current COVID-19 surge is misleading. Sutter fails,

9 for instance, to inform the Court as follows: (1) recent increases in COVID-19 hospitalizations

10 have not even come close to overwhelming hospital capacity across California or in the specific

11 counties where Sutter operates because COVID-19 hospitalizations utilize only a small percent-

12 age of available hospital bed capacity; (2) the number of hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients in

13 California is lower in counties with Sutter hospitals than in counties without Sutter hospitals; and

14 (3) the use of percentage changes by Sutter without referencing the base numbers results in a

15 distorted depiction of increased hospitalizations for Sutter. Supplemental Analysis of Professor

16 Glenn Melnick, attached to Supplemental Declaration of Emilio E. Varanini as Attachment 1.

17 CONCLUSION

18 Plaintiffs request that their objections to Sutter’s new evidence in its reply be sustained, or

19 in the alternative, that this Court consider the supplemental determination of the Attorney

20 General.

21 DATED: July 7, 2020 CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL

22
By: /s/ Emilio Varanini
23
Emilio Varanini
24 Attorneys for the People of the State of California

25
PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP
26
By: /s/ Richard Grossman
27
Richard Grossman
28 Lead Counsel for Plaintiff Class
4
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1
Objections to Conforti’s Supplemental Declaration
2

3 Material Objected To Grounds for Objection Court’s
Ruling
4 1. Conforti Decl. New Evidence Offered in Reply Sustained
Overruled
5
“The general rule of motion practice
6 … is that new evidence is not
permitted with reply papers …. [T]he
7 inclusion of additional evidentiary
matter with the reply should only be
8 allowed in the exceptional case … and
if permitted, the other party should be
9
given the opportunity to respond.”
10 Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., 245 Cal.
App. 4th 227, 241 (2016).
11 2. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 8-9 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
352). Overruled
12 “The number of COVID-19
hospitalizations at Sutter has The declarant’s assertion regarding the
13 increased significantly since June significant increase in COVID-19
12, 2020.”
14 hospitalizations at Sutter since June
12, 2020, is not relevant to the inquiry
15 before the Court. That issue has no
bearing on whether a continuance or
16 stay is needed when the Court’s focus
17 here is on the protection of absent
class members and whether the
18 injunctive relief would disserve the
public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
19 Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
20 Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
21 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
The issue is also irrelevant because,
22 contrary to Sutter’s strawman
argument, the Attorney General’s
23 determination never rested on any
conclusion that COVID-19 was
24
abating.
25

28
5
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 3. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 9-11 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
352). Overruled
2 “Overall, between June 12 to June
30, hospital beds used for active The declarant’s cited statistics
3 COVID-19 patients increased by regarding the increase in hospital beds
over 200% (with a 92.3% increase in used for active COVID-19 patients are
4 critical care beds and a 79.2% not relevant to the inquiry before the
increase in ICU beds).” Court. The statistics have no bearing
5 on whether a continuance or stay is
needed when the Court’s focus here is
6 on the protection of absent class
members and whether the injunctive
7 relief would disserve the public
interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail,
8 Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116, 133
(2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
9 Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
10 The statistics are also irrelevant
because, contrary to Sutter’s strawman
11 argument, the Attorney General’s
determination never rested on any
12 conclusion that COVID-19 was
abating.
13
4. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 11-12 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
14 352). Overruled
“Over just one day between June 28
15 and 29, the number of critical care The declarant’s cited statistics
beds with COVID-19 patients regarding the increase in the number
16 increased by 13.1% and ICU of critical care and ICU beds with
increased by 14.3%.” COVID-19 patients are not relevant to
17 the inquiry before the Court. The
statistics have no bearing on whether a
18 continuance or stay is needed when the
Court’s focus here is on the protection
19 of absent class members and whether
the injunctive relief would disserve the
20 public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
21 133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
22 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
The statistics are also irrelevant
23 because, contrary to Sutter’s strawman
argument, the Attorney General’s
24 determination never rested on any
conclusion that COVID-19 was
25 abating.
26

28
6
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 5. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 12-15 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
352). Overruled
2 “Due to this surge of COVID-19
patients in critical care beds over the The declarant’s assertion that Sutter
3 last three weeks, Sutter moved from moved from Critical Care Level 1 to
Critical Care Level 1 to Critical Care Critical Care Level 4 due to the surge
4 Level 4 under the surge plan of COVID-19 patients is not relevant
described in my first Declaration.” to the inquiry before the Court. The
5 issue has no bearing on whether a
continuance or stay is needed when the
6 Court’s focus here is on the protection
of absent class members and whether
7 the injunctive relief would disserve the
public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
8 Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
9 Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
10 The issue is also irrelevant because,
contrary to Sutter’s strawman
11 argument, the Attorney General’s
determination never rested on any
12 conclusion that COVID-19 was
abating.
13
6. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 15-16 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
14 352). Overruled
“Under Critical Care Level 4, Sutter
15 designated additional hospitals as The declarant’s assertion that Sutter
COVID-19 centers and expanded designated additional hospitals as
16 surge capacity to 600 critical care COVID-19 centers and expanded
beds.” surge capacity to 600 critical care beds
17 is not relevant to the inquiry before the
court. The issue has no bearing on
18 whether a continuance or stay is
needed when the Court’s focus here is
19 on the protection of absent class
members and whether the injunctive
20 relief would disserve the public
interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail,
21 Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116, 133
(2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
22 Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
23 The issue is also irrelevant because,
contrary to Sutter’s strawman
24 argument, the Attorney General’s
determination never rested on any
25 conclusion that COVID-19 was
abating.
26

28
7
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 7. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 16-19 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
352). Overruled
2 “With Sutter entering Critical Care
Level 4 of its four-stage surge plan, The declarant’s assertion that Sutter is
3 Sutter is redirecting COVID-19 redirecting COVID-19 patients from
patients from hospitals at capacity to hospitals at capacity to hospitals such
4 hospitals such as Alta Bates Summit as Alta Bates Summit Medical Center,
Medical Center, which is a a designated Group A Provider under
5 designated Group A Provider under the proposed injunction, is not relevant
the proposed injunction.” to the inquiry before the court. The
6 issue has no bearing on whether a
continuance or stay is needed when the
7 Court’s focus here is on the protection
of absent class members and whether
8 the injunctive relief would disserve the
public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
9 Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
10 Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
11 The issue is also irrelevant because,
contrary to Sutter’s strawman
12 argument, the Attorney General’s
determination never rested on any
13 conclusion that COVID-19 was
abating.
14

19
20

28
8
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 8. Conforti Decl. ¶ 2, lines 19-22 Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
352). Overruled
2 “This experience has demonstrated
that for the surge plan to function The declarant’s assertion that Sutter
3 properly, Sutter needs the freedom needs the “freedom and flexibility” to
and flexibility to redirect or transfer redirect or transfer patients to different
4 patients to different hospitals and
facilities, including hospitals hospitals and facilities, including
5 designated as “Group A” hospitals “Group A” hospitals under the
under the Proposed Final Judgment. Proposed Final Judgment in order for
6 Sutter’s surge plan to function
properly is not relevant to the inquiry
7 before the court. The issue has no
bearing on whether a continuance or
8
stay is needed when the Court’s focus
9 here is on the protection of absent
class members and whether the
10 injunctive relief would disserve the
public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
11 Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
12 133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
13 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
The issue is also irrelevant because,
14 contrary to Sutter’s strawman
argument, the Attorney General’s
15 determination never rested on any
16 conclusion that COVID-19 was
abating. And the issue is irrelevant
17 because modifications cannot be made
before final approval.
18

19
20
Objections to Kiernan’s Supplemental Declaration
21

22 Material Objected To Grounds for Objection Court’s
Ruling
23

28
9
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 9. Kiernan Decl. and Exs. New Evidence Offered in Reply Sustained
Overruled
2 “The general rule of motion practice
… is that new evidence is not
3 permitted with reply papers …. [T]he
inclusion of additional evidentiary
4 matter with the reply should only be
allowed in the exceptional case … and
5 if permitted, the other party should be
given the opportunity to respond.”
6 Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc., 245 Cal.
App. 4th 227, 241 (2016).
7
10. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 2, lines 6-10; Irrelevant (Evid. Code §§ 210, 350 Sustained
8 Exh. 26. 352). Overruled
9 “Attached as Exhibit 26 is a true and The facts in the material to which the
correct copy of the State of declarant cites are not relevant to the
10 California’s COVID-19 Case inquiry before the court, and has no
Statistics and Marin County’s bearing on whether a continuance or
11 COVID-19 Case Statistics reflecting stay is needed when the Court’s focus
data as of June 29, 2020, the most here is on the protection of absent
12 recent date available, located at class members and whether the
https://public.tableau.com/views/CO injunctive relief would disserve the
13 VID- public interest. (Kullar v. Foot Locker
19CasesDashboard_1593102042501 Retail, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 116,
14 0/Cases?:embed=y&:showVizHome 133 (2008); 7-Eleven Owners for Fair
=no.” Franchising v. Southland Corp., 85
15 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 1146 (2000).)
The current increase in
16 hospitalizations, and the magnitude of
the current surge, whether in counties
17 in which Sutter operates or elsewhere,
is irrelevant as it says nothing about
18 the number of hospitalizations months
from now, or upon a grant of final
19 approval.
20 See Objection No. 10. Sustained
11. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 3, lines 11-13;
Exh. 27. Overruled
21

22 “Attached as Exhibit 27 is a true and
correct copy of the article titled
23 “Coronavirus infection rate spiking
in California, a troubling sign of
24 community spread,” published by
the Los Angeles Times on June 27,
25 2020.”

28
10
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 12. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 4, lines 14-16; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
Exh. 28 Overruled
2
“Attached as Exhibit 28 is a true and
3 correct copy of the article titled
“After recording new rise in cases,
4 SF suspends next phase of
reopening,” published by SF Gate on
5 June 26, 2020.”
6 See Objection No. 10. Sustained
13. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 5, lines 17-19;
Exh. 29 Overruled
7

8 “Attached as Exhibit 29 is a true and
correct copy of the article titled
9 “With coronavirus cases surging
across California, where can the Bay
10 Area look for answers,” published by
the San Francisco Chronicle on June
11 29, 2020.”

12 14. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 6, lines 20-22; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
Exh. 30 Overruled
13
“Attached as Exhibit 30 is a true and
14 correct copy of the article titled
“U.S. Coronavirus Cases Surge
15 Amid Strains on Hospitals,”
published by the Wall Street Journal
16 on June 29, 2020.”
17 15. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 7, lines 23-25; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
Exh. 31 Overruled
18

19 “Attached as Exhibit 31 is a true and
correct copy of the article titled
20 “SF’s 49% surge in hospitalizations
puts city on high alert,” published by
21 the San Francisco Chronicle on July
1, 2020.”
22
16. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 8, lines 26-28; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
23 Exh. 32 Overruled

24 “Attached as Exhibit 32 is a true and
correct copy of the article titled
25 “Contra Costa County evaluating
current reopening timeline after
26 spike in cases,” published by ABC7
News on June 27, 2020.”
27

28
11
Objection to Reply Decls./Request to Consider Suppl. Determination of the Attorney General
(Case Nos. CGC-14-568451 and CGC-18-565398)
1 17. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 9, lines 1-3; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
Exh. 33 Overruled
2
“Attached as Exhibit 33 is a true and
3 correct copy of the article titled
“California Counties Backtrack on
4 Reopening as Virus Surges,”
published by NBC Los Angeles on
5 June 26, 2020.”
6 18. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 10, lines 4-6; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
Exh. 3[4] Overruled
7
“Attached as Exhibit 3[4] is a true
8 and correct copy of the article titled
“Coronavirus: Bay Area
9 hospitalizations outpacing rest of
California, which is also rising
10 rapidly,” published by The Mercury
News on June 29, 2020.”
11
19. Kiernan’s Decl. ¶ 11, lines 7-9; See Objection No. 10. Sustained
12 Exh. 35

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 07, 2020

Case Filing Date

April 07, 2014

County

Parties

ADVENTIST HEALTH Third Party
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEMS/WEST Other
AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Other
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Other
AFFILIATED MONITORS, INC. Other
APPLE INC. Other
AUTODESK, INC. Other
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES WELFARE FUND Other
BARENBAUM, DANIEL E Attorney
BIRD, DANIEL G. Attorney
BIRD, DANIEL G. Attorney for the Plaintiff
BLOCH, ROBERT E. Attorney
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA DBA ANTHEM BLUE CROSS Defendant
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA DBA ANTHEM BLUE CROSS Other
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CALIFORNIA IRONWORKERS FIELD Other
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CARPENTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE Other
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 104 Other
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, U.A. LOCAL 393 HEALTH AND Other
BOHRER, DAVID C. Attorney
BOHRER, DAVID C. Attorney for the Plaintiff
BRANSON, JOSHUA D. Attorney
BRANSON, JOSHUA D. Attorney for the Plaintiff
BRERETON, DREW Attorney
BUNZEL, ROBERT HARVEY Attorney for the Appellant
BUNZEL, ROBERT HARVEY Attorney for the Defendant
CABLE, ELIZABETH Attorney
CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE COALITION Other
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION Other
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE D/B/A BLUE SHIELD Other
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Other
CALIFORNIA SERVICE EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND WELFARE Other
CALIFORNIA'S VALUED TRUST Other
CAUGHMAN, NOEL M Attorney
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER Other
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER Third Party
CEMENT MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR Other
CIGNA HEALTHCARE AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Other
CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (NON PARTY) Other
CIGNA HEALTHCARE OF CALIFORNIA (NONPARTY) Other
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Other
CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Other
COGNIZANT TRIZETTO SOFTWARE GROUP, INC. Cross Defendant
COGNIZANT TRIZETTO SOFTWARE GROUP, INC. Other
COMMERSON, SCOTT R. Attorney
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA Other
CONLEY, SUMMER Attorney
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Other
COOPER, JOHN LEE Attorney
COOPER, JOHN LEE Attorney for the Plaintiff
COTTAGE HEALTH Other
COTTAGE HEALTH Third Party
COUNSEL FOR DISTRICT COUNCIL #16 NORTHERN Other
COVA, ALLISON Attorney
DEL NORTE COUNTY Other
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE Other
DEUTSCH, ERICA Attorney
DE VRIES, MICHAEL W. Attorney
DIGNITY HEALTH Other
DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER OF MODESTO Other
DOMINGO, CHRISTOPHER H. Attorney for the Appellant
DOMINGO, CHRISTOPHER H. Attorney for the Defendant
DOREN, RICHARD JOSEPH Attorney
DUBNER, JEFFREY B. Attorney for the Plaintiff
DUNLAP, OLIVER Q. Attorney for the Appellant
DUNLAP, OLIVER Q. Attorney for the Defendant
DXC TECHNOLOGY CO. Other
EDEN MEDICAL CENTER Appellant
EDEN MEDICAL CENTER Defendant
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER Third Party
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL Other
ELLIOTT, LINDA A. Attorney
ELLIOTT, LINDA A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
ENNS, KRISTA M. Attorney
EVANS, GARETH T. Attorney for the Appellant
EVANS, GARETH T. Attorney for the Defendant
FETTERMAN, KENNETH M Attorney
FETTERMAN, KENNETH M Attorney for the Plaintiff
GARMAN, JACQUELYN J Attorney
GINSBERG, DAVID J. Attorney
GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL Other
GOOGLE LLC Other
GOTTESMAN, BENJAMIN J. Attorney
GOTTESMAN, BENJAMIN J. Attorney for the Plaintiff
GROSSMAN, RICHARD LEE Attorney
GROSSMAN, RICHARD LEE Attorney for the Plaintiff
HAMILTON, CYNDY Attorney
HANSEN, MARK C. Attorney
HANSEN, MARK C. Attorney for the Plaintiff
HARTMAN, JACOB E. Attorney
HARTMAN, JACOB E. Attorney for the Plaintiff
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. Other
HOLTZMAN, STEVEN CHRISTOPHE Attorney
HOURIGAN, KAREN O. Attorney for the Appellant
HOURIGAN, KAREN O. Attorney for the Defendant
HUMANA INC. Other
HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Other
I.A.T.S.E. LOCAL 16 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND Other
INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION Other
JACOBS, MICHAEL ALLEN Attorney
JOHN MUIR HEALTH Other
JOHN MUIR HEALTH Third Party
JONES, GREGORY R Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. Other
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS Other
KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE COMPANY Other
KELLOGG, MICHAEL K. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KELLOGG, MICHAEL K. Attorney for the Plaintiff
KELLY, CHRISTOPHER J. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KERN, JOHN P.
KESHAVARZI, MOE Attorney
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Other
KIERNAN, DAVID C. Attorney for the Appellant
KIERNAN, DAVID C. Attorney for the Defendant
KING, CHRISTOPHER Q. Attorney for the Appellant
KING, CHRISTOPHER Q. Attorney for the Defendant
KINNEY, KERRY M. Attorney
KRAW, GEORGE MARTIN Attorney
LEAVITT, CURTIS S Attorneys for Defendants
LEBSOCK, CHRISTOPHER L. Attorney
LEITZINGER, ELIZABETH R. Attorney
LESINSKI, KEVIN JOHN Attorney
LEVEE, JEFFREY A. Attorney for the Appellant
LEVEE, JEFFREY A. Attorney for the Defendant
LEWIS, MARC R. Attorney
LONERGAN, MARK DOUGLAS Attorneys for Defendants
LONERGAN, MARK DOUGLAS Attorney for the Defendant
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER Other
LORAN, THOMAS VICTOR Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARIN GENERL HOSPITAL Other
MEDDATA, INC. Other
MELNICK, PH.D., GLENN Other
MELTON, DOUGLAS J Attorney
MERCER HEALTH & BENEFITS LLC Other
MILLS-PENNISULA HEALTH SERVICES Appellant
MILLS-PENNISULA HEALTH SERVICES Defendant
MOORE, CHRISTOPHER S. Attorney
MOORE, CHRISTOPHER S. Attorney for the Plaintiff
MORSE, T. JACK Attorney
MURRAY, JASON CRAIG Attorney
NADEL, EVAN S. Attorney
NELSON, SHANEE Y. W. Attorney
NETAPP, INC. Other
NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION Other
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LABORERS HEALTH & WELFARE Other
O'HARA, BRIDGET R. Attorney
O'HARA, BRIDGET R. Attorney for the Plaintiff
O'NEIL, MICHAEL R Attorney
OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 501 SECURITY Other
PAK, ALBERT Y. Attorney
PAK, ALBERT Y. Attorney for the Plaintiff
PALLEY, MARK AARON Attorneys for Defendants
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION FOR HEALTHCARE Appellant
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION FOR HEALTHCARE Defendant
PANNER, AARON M. Attorney
PANNER, AARON M. Attorney for the Plaintiff
PEARSON, MATTHEW D. Attorney
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff (consolidated Case)
PERLMAN, SCOTT P. Attorney
PILLER, GEOFFREY LEWIS Attorney
PLATT, EMILY Attorney
POTTER, JOHN M Attorney for the Appellant
POTTER, JOHN M Attorney for the Defendant
RABIE, SERENA Attorney
RABIE, SERENA Attorney for the Plaintiff
REDGRAVE, JONATHAN M. Attorney for the Appellant
REDGRAVE, JONATHAN M. Attorney for the Defendant
REIS, DAIVID J. Attorneys for Defendants
ROBERT F. KENNEDY MEDICAL PLAN Other
ROBERTS, ARTHUR Attorney for the Appellant
ROBERTS, ARTHUR Attorney for the Defendant
RYAN, PATRICK M. Attorney for the Appellant
RYAN, PATRICK M. Attorney for the Defendant
RYAN, THOMAS A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SAETVEIT, KRISTIN Attorney
SELDEN, BRIAN G. Attorneys for Defendants
SELDEN, BRIAN G. Attorney for the Defendant
SHWARTS, ROBERT S Attorney
SIEGEL, STEPHEN J. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SIEGEL, STEPHEN J. Attorney for the Plaintiff
SIMMONS, SLOAN R. Attorney
SMALL, DANIEL A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SMALL, DANIEL A. Attorney for the Plaintiff
SMERSFELT, KENNETH N Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SMERSFELT, KENNETH N Attorney for the Defendant
SOKOL, WILLIAM A Attorney
SOLOMON, GLENN E. Attorney
SORENSEN, JACOB Attorneys for Defendants
STANFORD HEALTH CARE Other
STATIONARY ENGINEERS LOCAL 39 HEALTH & WELFARE Other
STEMERMAN, STEVEN LOUIS Attorneys for Plaintiffs
STEMERMAN, STEVEN LOUIS Attorney for the Plaintiff
STORINO, DANIEL K. Attorney
SUTTER COAST HOSPITAL Appellant
SUTTER COAST HOSPITAL Defendant
SUTTER HEALTH Appellant
SUTTER HEALTH Defendant
SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO Defendant
SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO SIERRA REGION Appellant
SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO SIERRA REGION Defendant
SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION Appellant
SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION Defendant
SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS Appellant
SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS Defendant
SVIHRA, ZUZANA J Attorney
SYNOPSYS, INC. Other
SZABO, TROY R. Attorney
TEAMSTERS BENEFIT TRUST Other
TENET HEALTHCARE Other
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Other
TREADWELL, RICHARD Attorneys for Plaintiffs
TREADWELL, RICHARD Attorney for the Plaintiff
TREFZ, KATHERINE Attorney
TUREK, DOUGLAS Attorney
UFCW & EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST ON BEHALF OF Plaintiff
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. Other
VARANINI, EMILIO E Attorneys for Plaintiffs
VARANINI, EMILIO E Attorney for the Plaintiff
WARD, MARGARET A. Attorney for the Appellant
WARD, MARGARET A. Attorney for the Defendant
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP HEALTH CARE DISTRICT Other
WEINER, JESSICA B. Attorney
WEINER, JESSICA B. Attorney for the Plaintiff
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Defendant
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Third Party
WHITE, COLLIN R. Attorney
WHITE, COLLIN R. Attorney for the Plaintiff
ZENG, CATHERINE TARA Attorney for the Appellant
ZENG, CATHERINE TARA Attorney for the Defendant
Matthew Silveira Attorneys for Defendants
Charles Robinson Attorney
Karen Petrulakis Attorney
Michael Lifrak Attorney
Philip Pillsbury Attorney
Roderick Thompson Attorney
Christopher Wheeler Attorney
Elizabeth Williams Attorney
Sarah Grossman-Swenson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Claire Johnson Attorney
Esther La Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel Nichols Attorney
Michelle Cheng Attorneys for Defendants
Dayna Nicholson Attorney
Maxwell Pritt Attorney
Kevin Whittaker Attorney
Christa Anderson Attorneys for Defendants
Simona Agnolucci Attorneys for Defendants
Elspeth Hansen Attorney
Laura Alexander Attorney
Rachel Zernik Attorney
Donald Falk Attorney
Cheryl Johnson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Meghan Brosnahan Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Schwartz Attorneys for Defendants
Carrie McLain Attorney
John Kortum Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brian Wang Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Zuzana Ikels
Lin Kahn Attorneys for Defendants
Andrew Purdy Attorney
James Dallal Attorney
Ryan McEwan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Steven Williams Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Elizabeth Tran Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Heather Tewksbury Attorneys for Defendants
Michelle Chiu Attorneys for Defendants
Eric Enson Attorneys for Defendants
Roxane Polidora Attorneys for Defendants
Lindsay Lutz Attorneys for Defendants
Colin Murray Attorneys for Defendants
Ian Papendick Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Tubach Attorneys for Defendants
Christina Brown Attorneys for Defendants
Michael Burns Attorneys for Defendants
David Stern Attorneys for Defendants
Carolin Sahimi Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Kaufhold Attorneys for Defendants
Viggo Boserup Attorneys for Defendants
David Holtzman Attorneys for Defendants
Jay Cooper Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Reid Mullen Attorneys for Defendants
Thomas Gorman Attorneys for Defendants
Kathleen Foote Attorneys for Defendants
John Tibbitts Attorney
Malinda Lee Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Justin Lowe Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Paige Adaskaveg Attorney
Matthew Ruan Attorney
Bailey Heaps Attorney
Cecily Harris Attorney
Craig Stewart Attorney
Thomas Ryan Attorney
Jessica Thomas Attorney
Irene Azcarraga Attorney
Elliot Peters Attorney
Joel Campbell-Blair Attorney
Eunice Majam-Simpson Attorney
Katherine Dru Attorney
Sydney Allen Attorney
Adam Vukovic Attorneys for Defendants
Ariana Van Alstine Attorneys for Defendants
Allan Steyer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Suneel Jain Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Caroline Mitchell Attorneys for Defendants
Jeffrey Chanin Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Ragland Attorneys for Defendants
John Newton Attorney
Ariana Fuller Attorney
Erica Turcios Attorney
Jeffrey Chen Attorneys for Defendants
Matthew Weiler Attorney
Kenneth O'Brien Attorneys for Defendants
Amir Shlesinger Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gillian Clow Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Caroline Van Wagoner Attorney
Jeremy Kauffman Attorney
Kennedy Richardson Attorneys for Defendants
David Rosenberg-Wohl Attorneys for Defendants
Sarah Edwards Attorneys for Defendants
Jarrad Wood Attorney
Shauna Imanaka Attorney
Donna Kirchner Attorney
Joseph Cachuela Attorney
Barbara Barath Attorney
Heather Richardson Kuljurgis Attorney
Raymond Wright Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jason Wright Attorney
Dorothy Williams Attorney
James Sloat Attorney
William Vongdeuane Attorney
Cornelia Dai Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Holsberry Attorney
Paul More Attorney
Shimea Anderson Attorney
Florence Culp Attorney
Laurie Moe Attorney
Lance Martin Attorney
Lily North Attorney
S. Song Attorney
Aidan Poppler Attorney
Andrew Kuljis Attorney
Clay Wheeler Attorney
Seth Weisburst Attorney
Lauren Kessler Attorney
Khyrstyn McGarry Attorney
Andrew Holmer Attorney
Lorrie Bradley Attorney
Suzanne Chammout Attorney
Meghan Lambert Attorney
Natalie Rea Attorney
Janice Reicher Attorney
Ralph Kalfayan Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Heimann Attorney
Lin Chan Attorney
Yaman Salahi Attorney
David Coleman Attorney
Zoe Wilhelm Attorney
Michael Kopp Attorneys for Defendants
Elyssa Romino Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Wiley Driskill Attorney
Daniel Wall Attorneys for Defendants
Karen Johnson Attorney
Laura Zuckerman Attorney
Daniela Almeida-Quigg Attorney
Thomas Knego Attorney
Xavier Becerra Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Patrick O'Shaughnessy Attorney
Timothy Daveler Attorney
Philip Lin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Ladner Attorney
Matthew Diton Attorneys for Defendants
Ashley Eickhof Attorney
Carol Ventura Attorney
James Haigh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Roberta Kuehne Attorney
Crista Welch Attorney
Rachel Wintterle Attorney
Mary Kamka Attorneys for Defendants
Elizabeth Burnside Attorney
Steven Cohen Attorney
Jason Cucovatz Attorney
Yuval Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Jorgenson Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel Kappes Attorneys for Defendants
Irene Lee Attorney
Heather Richardson Attorney
John Donhoff Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Maureen McGuirl Attorneys for Defendants
Graham Helm Attorney
Alden Lee Attorney
Robert Black Attorney
David Brownstein Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kerry Duffy Attorney
Marc Feldman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kevin Calia Attorneys for Defendants
Alekzandir Morton Attorney
L Campbell Attorney
Karen Kimmey Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kaitlyn Murphy Attorney
Stephen Brodsky Attorney
Robert Jones Attorney
Gary Loveridge Attorney
Christopher Spiers Attorneys for Defendants
Gareth Trude Attorneys for Defendants
William Schuck Attorneys for Defendants
Karen Weinstein Attorneys for Defendants
Yvette Kohan Attorney
Angela Howard Attorney
Kyle Monson Attorney
S. Wright Attorneys for Defendants
Jessica Marinelli Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Katherine McDonough Attorney
Kyrsten Skogstad Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Blythe Mickelson Attorney
Ezekiel Carder Attorney
Mark Coby Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dexter Rappleye Attorney
Melissa Billet Attorney
Lauren Collins Attorney
Allan Isbell Attorney
Jeffrey Harrison Attorney
Anne Morris Attorney
Peter Austin Attorneys for Defendants
Donald Macrae Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Meagan Bellshaw Attorney
David Chen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Thomas Vogel Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jamie Kim Attorney
Eric Grover Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jill Menning Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Laura Gildengorin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
William Farmer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Charles Jaeger Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Goldstein Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Todd Schneider Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kyle Bates Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Bryan Crawley Attorney
Stephen Goff Attorney
Michael Kim Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Daniel Gray Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Kim Attorney
Richard Lotts Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Roderick Macneil Attorney
Christopher Chiou Attorney
Teresa Renaker Attorney
Margaret Hoyt Attorney
James Keenley Attorney
Brian Kim Attorney
Raja Sekaran Attorney
Patrice Harper
Benjamin Ellis Attorneys for Defendants
Samuel Duimovich Attorney
Susan Hansen Attorney
Bethany Hengsbach Attorney
Azra Mehdi Attorney
Moe Keshavarzi Attorney
Steven LaBrie Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Whitney Carlson Attorney
Reed Lyon Attorney
SCOTT PETERS Attorney
Benjamin Craven Attorney
Shaina Shapiro Attorney
Michael Abraham Attorney
Alicia Jovais Attorney
James Kovacs Attorney
Matthew Kwon Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Caroline Stewart Attorney
Alma Nieto Attorney
Tracey Zeng Attorney
Heather Domingo Attorney
Marian Thompson Attorney
Peter Anderson Attorney
Sara Costello Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ryan Wessels Attorney
Brian Sweeney Attorney
Benjamin Watson Attorney
Michael Oehler Attorney
Russell Taylor Attorney
James Bow Attorney
Ellen Corbett Attorney
Forrest Kowalczyk Attorney
Molly Wilkens Attorney
Arcelia Hurtado Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rhonda Goldstein Attorney
David Levine Attorney
Ann Sparkman Attorney
Francesca Cicero Attorneys for Defendants
Regina Jones Attorneys for Defendants
Marc Peters Attorney
Dorian Daley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Deborah Miller Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Sarboraria Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Donald Zimmer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Cheryl Sabnis Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ian Ballon Attorneys for Defendants
Heather Meeker Attorneys for Defendants
Nell Clement Attorney
Rita Morales Attorney
Howard Strong Attorney
Ryan McCauley Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Rebecca Furman Attorney
Nathalie Fayad Attorney
Kimberly Hancock Attorney
Peter McEntee Attorneys for Defendants
John Provost Attorneys for Defendants
Clement Kong Attorneys for Defendants
Jill Peterson Attorneys for Defendants
Robert Weeks Attorneys for Defendants
Mathew Evans Attorneys for Defendants
Daniel Jay Attorneys for Defendants
Mona Patel-Sikora Attorney
Susan Grant Attorney
Amy Luong Attorney
Benjamin Riley Attorney
Michael Scarborough Attorney
Andrea Brown Attorney
Kerry Lyon-Grossman Attorney
Benjamin A.Malings Attorney
Erica Yen Attorney
Aimee Armsby Attorney
Ariana Anderson Attorneys for Defendants
Stephen Case Attorney
Eric Aguilera Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Patricia Nagler Attorney
Robert Haden Attorney
Emily Rich Attorney
Linda Jones Attorney
Kristin Hucek Attorney
Jeffrey Anielski Attorney
Tiffany Hansen Attorneys for Defendants
Brian Glick Attorneys for Defendants
Eliot Reiner Attorney
John Grenfell Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Barry Jellison Attorney
JoAnn Campoy Attorney
Charles Reed Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Susan Case Attorney
Andrew Winetroub Attorneys for Defendants
Steve Ra Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perry Grossman Attorney
Christopher Dominguez Attorney
Taylor Day Attorney
Jin Kim Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brian Taylor Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Wan Attorney
Kathleen Donovan Attorney
Concepcion Lozano-Batista Attorney
Kristina Zinnen Attorney
Sandra Chan Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Lebsock Attorney
Arthur Bailey Attorney
Bruce Wecker Attorney
Sharif Jacob Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Seth Gassman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Connie Sung Attorneys for Defendants
Victor Yu Attorneys for Defendants
John Grant Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kenneth Black Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Darren Robbins Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ellen Gusikoff Attorneys for Plaintiffs
James Jaconette Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey Chien Attorney
William Chan Attorney
Jeffrey Lee Attorney
Jeffrey Asidi Attorneys for Defendants
Tamara Keller Attorney
Lisa Sanchez Attorney
Melissa Bender Attorney
Kathryn Leonard Attorney
Jeffrey Ahronian Attorney
William Solari Attorney
Jennifer Wilson Attorney
Jonathan McGee Attorney
Evan Allen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lindsay Cooper-Greene Attorney
Frank Farella Attorney
Daniel Kohls Attorney
Christine Jacob Attorney
Leslie Murphy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
John Whittaker Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Nat Agliano Attorney
Margaret Wu Attorney
Jonathan Rizzardi Attorney
Matthew Stern Attorney
Faranak Benjamin Attorney
Victor Hansen Attorney
J Kelly Attorney
John Meaney Attorney
Terri Cammarano Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Request,Application: UFCW & EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST ON BEHALF OF VS. SUTTER HEALTH et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties