Amended Complaint Filed No FeeCal. Super. - 6th Dist.October 19, 201822862 FAC - 1 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO & COLMAN, INC. JOY STEPHENSON-LAWS, ESQ. (SBN 113755) RICHARD A. LOVICH, ESQ. (SBN 113472) KARLENE ROGERS-ABERMAN, ESQ. (SBN 237883) DAVID F. MASTAN, ESQ. (SBN 152109) GERALDINE S. GARCIA, ESQ. (SBN 319561) 303 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 700 Burbank, CA 91502 Telephone: (818) 559-4477 Facsimile: (818) 559-5484 Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE, a California for profit corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE, a California for profit corporation Plaintiff, v. AETNA INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and SAP AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. Case No.: 18CV336774 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED IN FACT CONTRACT; 2. BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT; AND 3. QUANTUM MERUIT. FILED County of Santa Clara Superior Court of CA Clerk of The Court 18CV336774 By: phernandez 5-8-19 22862 FAC - 2 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES PARTIES 1. Plaintiff California Spine and Neurosurgery Institute ("California Neurosurgery") is a for profit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. California Neurosurgery has its principal place of operation in City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California. California Neurosurgery provides minimally invasive spine surgery to patients suffering from spinal injuries and/or conditions. 2. Defendant Aetna, Inc., a for profit corporation that does business is California and is organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut. Aetna, Inc. operates through its subsidiary, Aetna Life Insurance Company, a for profit corporation that also does business in California and is also organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut. Among other things, Aetna, Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company. (collectively as "Aetna") sponsor and administer health plans. 3. Defendant SAP America, Inc. ("SAP America") is a for profit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware. SAP America is headquartered in the Township of Newton Square, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania and which has permission to do business in California. SAP America sponsors a self-funded health benefit plan, providing health care benefits to its employees and their dependents. 4. California Neurosurgery is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether corporate, associate, individual, partnership or otherwise of 22862 FAC - 3 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious names. California Neurosurgery will seek leave of the Court to amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 5. Aetna, SAP America, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, shall be collectively referred to as "Defendants." 6. Defendants, and each of them, at all relevant times, have transacted business in the State of California. The violations alleged within this complaint have been and are being carried out in the State of California. 7. California Neurosurgery is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, each of the defendants, including the defendants named "Doe" were and are the agent, employee, employer, joint venturer, representative, alter ego, subsidiary, and/or partner of one or more of the other defendants, and were, in performing the acts complained of herein, acting within the scope of such agency, employment, joint venture, or partnership authority, and/or are in some other way responsible for the acts of one or more of the other defendants. COMMON FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. California Neurosurgery is a medical facility dedicated to the care and treatment of spine injuries and/or conditions. California Neurosurgery provides unsurpassed patient care through the use of state-of-the-art minimally invasive surgery and motion preservation techniques. Dr. Adebukola Onibokun is the principal physician and the only neurosurgeon practicing on behalf of California Neurosurgery. Patients seek medical treatment from Dr. Onibokun at 22862 FAC - 4 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Neurosurgery for their spine conditions because of the advantages that minimally invasive spine surgery has over traditional open spine surgery. Minimally invasive spine surgery uses advanced imaging techniques and special medical equipment to reduce tissue trauma, bleeding, hospital stays and recovery by minimizing the size of the incision used to correct the spinal condition. 9. California Neurosurgery did not have any preexisting agreement, partnership, and/or contract with any managed health care plan, health insurance agency, or employer group. It is California Neurosurgery's practice to verify eligibility for surgery based on a patient's health care plan on or near the date the patient has their initial consultation at California Neurosurgery. California Neurosurgery also takes upon itself to obtain an approval for requested services where a patient's health care plan requires such. 10. California Neurosurgery is informed and believes and on that basis alleges SAP America entered into a contractual relationship with Aetna for Aetna to provide administrative services with respect to paying for and/or arranging for medical care to be rendered by providers like California Neurosurgery to Aetna's participants. Among other duties, such an arrangement required Aetna to confirm a beneficiary's eligibility and benefits to medical providers such as California Neurosurgery in order to ensure healthcare services would be provided to SAP America's participants and/or beneficiaries without delay. In other words, Aetna on SAP America's behalf would provide sufficient assurances to medical providers that they would be paid for the medical care expected to be rendered to SAP America's beneficiaries. Such an arrangement thereby obligated SAP America to pay healthcare providers for services rendered to SAP America's beneficiaries. 22862 FAC - 5 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. California Neurosurgery is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that all relevant times Patient R.C. (Member ID:W209435274)1 and Patient J.P. (Member ID: W204888550)1 were beneficiaries of an Aetna health plan sponsored, paid for, and/or funded by SAP America. To signify such membership, SAP America authorized Aetna to issue Patient R.C and Patient J.P. an Aetna/SAP America identification card and instructed Patients R.C. and J.P. to present that card to medical providers (including California Neurosurgery) in order to obtain medical care. Aetna and SAP America did so with the intent to assure medical providers that they would be paid for medical care rendered to SAP America's beneficiaries at the usual and customary value for such care (unless a medical provider had a pre-existing contractual relationship with Aetna to provider such medical care at certain set discounted rates). 12. Patient R.C. had a history of progressively worsening lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain prior to Patient R.C.'s initial consultation with California Neurosurgery. Patient R.C. sought the medical services of California Neurosurgery in order to alleviate Patient R.C.'s medical conditions. 13. Patient J.P. had a history of progressively worsening lower back pain and bilateral extremity pain, numbness and weakness prior Patient J.P.'s initial consultation with California Neurosurgery. Patient J.P. sought the medical services of California Neurosurgery in order to alleviate Patient J.P.'s medical conditions. 1 California Neurosurgery has limited the disclosure of patient identification information here pursuant to the privacy provisions of the federal Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320(d) et seq., and the California Constitution, art. 1, § 1. 22862 FAC - 6 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. Given that Patients R.C. and J.P. carried identification cards identifying Patients R.C. and J.P. as belonging to an Aetna health plan sponsored, paid for, and/or funded by SAP America, prior to each patient's date of service, staff at California Neurosurgery telephoned Aetna to verify Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.'s medical eligibility benefits. Aetna client services representatives - acting on behalf of both Aetna and SAP America - verified both Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.'s healthcare coverage under Aetna health benefit plan sponsored by, paid for, and/or funded by SAP America. The representatives either expressly or impliedly assured California Neurosurgery that Defendants carried the financial responsibility to pay for Patient R.C.'s and Patient J.P's anticipated medical care at 80% of the usual and customary value for such care (and not at certain set discounted rates because California Neurosurgery had no pre-existing contractual relationship with Aetna or SAP America). Patient R.C. 15. On or about April 20, 2017, California Neurosurgery was informed by Aetna client services representative, known as "Kim," of Patient R.C.'s benefits regarding outpatient procedures such as spine surgery and using a provider who is non-contracted with Aetna and SAP America. By its agent, Aetna represented that reimbursement would be "80% of the usual and customary rate." 16. Also, on or about April 20, 2017, Aetna's client services representative represented to California Neurosurgery that under the terms of Patient R.C.'s health plan, no pre-authorization was required for an outpatient procedure such as the surgery received by Patient R.C. 17. On August 8, 2017, based upon existence of an identification 22862 FAC - 7 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 card issued by Aetna and SAP America, the telephone call with Aetna, and the express and/or implied resultant assurances that California Neurosurgery would be paid at least 80% the usual and customary value of its medical services anticipated to be rendered to Patient R.C., California Neurosurgery provided medically necessary and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient R.C. 18. As directed by Patient R.C.'s Aetna/SAP America identification card, California Neurosurgery timely and properly submitted a bill to Aetna for medically necessary services, supplies, and/or equipment it rendered to Patient R.C. in the amount of $87,500 which represents California Neurosurgery's usual and customary charges for such services (and such care's usual and customary value). By doing so, California Neurosurgery expected Defendants to pay at least 80% of the usual and customary value for such care, or $70,000. 19. Defendants paid only $4,697.35 of the $87,500 bill for the medically necessary procedures and treatment rendered to Patient R.C. by California Neurosurgery. After deduction of that payment, Aetna and/or SAP America failed to pay the remaining $65,302.65 for the medical care rendered to Patient R.C. Patient J.P. 20. On or about April 26, 2017, California Neurosurgery was informed by Aetna client services representative, known as "Leo B.," of Patient J.P.'s benefits regarding outpatient procedures such as spine surgery and using a provider who is non-contracted with Aetna/SAP America. By its agent, Aetna represented that reimbursement would be "based on 80%" of the usual and customary rate. 22862 FAC - 8 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. Also, on or about April 26, 2017, Aetna's client services representative represented to California Neurosurgery that under the terms of Patient J.P.'s health plan, no pre-authorization was required for an outpatient procedure such as the surgery received by Patient J.P. 22. On May 25, 2017, based upon existence of an identification card issued by Aetna and SAP America, the telephone call with Aetna, and the express and/or implied resultant assurances that California Neurosurgery would be paid at least 80% of the usual and customary value of its medical services anticipated to be rendered to Patient J.P., California Neurosurgery provided medically necessary and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient J.P. 23. As directed by Patient J.P.'s Aetna/SAP America identification card, California Neurosurgery timely and properly submitted a bill to Aetna for medically necessary services, supplies, and/or equipment it rendered to Patient J.P. in the amount of $121,000 which represents California Neurosurgery's usual and customary charges for such services (and such care's usual and customary value). By doing so, California Neurosurgery expected Defendants to pay at least 80% of the usual and customary value for such care, or $96,800. 24. Defendants paid only $7,599.60 of the $121,000 bill for the medically necessary procedures and treatment rendered to Patient J.P. by California Neurosurgery. After deduction of that payment, Aetna and/or SAP America failed to pay the remaining $56,850.00 for the medical care rendered to Patient J.P. 25. As a result of Defendants' refusal to fully pay California Neurosurgery at least 80% of its usual and customary rate for the medically 22862 FAC - 9 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 necessary procedures and treatment rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P., California Neurosurgery has been damaged in the amount of at least $65,302.65 for Patient R.C. and in the amount of $89,200.40 for Patient J.P. for a total of $154,503.05 in damages, exclusive of prejudgment interest. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED IN FACT CONTRACT) (Against all Defendants) 26. California Neurosurgery incorporates by reference and re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 25 here as though set forth in full. 27. As is custom and practice in the health care industry, sometimes hospitals and health plans form contracts through their conduct even though they do not exchange express promises; contracts under which a medical provider agrees to render medically necessary health care to a beneficiary of a health plan and in return the health plan agrees to pay for such health care for the usual and customary value of such care (typically at the medical provider's billed rates). Such implied-in-fact contracts can arise from a variety of manifested conduct which includes, among other things, when a health plan issues an identification care to its beneficiaries, when a health plan instructs those beneficiaries to present such identification cards to medical providers so as to give assurances to those medical providers that such care will be paid for, when a medical provider telephones a health plan to ask for authorization to render medical care for a particular beneficiary of that health plan, when the health plan communicates medical eligibility benefits for that particular beneficiary without advising the medical provider that the health plan will not make full payment, and when the health plan indicates pre-authorization is not required for outpatient medical 22862 FAC - 10 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 services for that beneficiary. 28. On or about April 20, 2017 and on or about April 26, 2017, California Neurosurgery contacted Aetna for the purposes of determining whether Aetna and/or SAP America, would be financially responsible for paying for the medical services to be rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P, respectively. In response, Aetna's client services representatives gave California Neurosurgery information confirming that Patients R.C. and J.P. belonged to an Aetna health plan sponsored, funded, and/or paid for by SAP America, and did not advise California Neurosurgery that Defendants would not pay less than 80% of the usual and customary value of such care. 29. By such conduct and assurances, and by virtue of custom and practice within the hospital reimbursement industry, it was understood between California Neurosurgery and Defendants that Defendants would pay the usual and customary value of the anticipated medically necessary services, supplies, and/or equipment to be rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.; in other words, an implied-in-fact contract arose between California Neurosurgery and Defendants even though express words of assent were not used. 30. Consistent with the terms of that implied-in-fact contract, on August 8, 2017, Dr. Onibokun of California Neurosurgery performed medically necessary and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient R.C. On May 25, 2017, Dr. Onibokun performed medically necessary and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient J.P. 31. California Neurosurgery reasonably relied on that conduct and representations. In the absence of such conduct and representations by Defendants' 22862 FAC - 11 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 agent at Aetna, California Neurosurgery could have made alternative payment arrangements for Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.'s medical care or could have chosen to not provide such services at all. 32. California Neurosurgery rendered all medically necessary procedures and treatment needed by Patient R.C. and Patient J.P. regarding each patient's spine condition, and performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with terms and conditions of the above-described implied-in-fact contract. 33. Defendants breached that implied-in-fact contract by refusing without justification to fully pay California Neurosurgery at least 80% of its usual and customary rate of $208,500 (total billed charges of $87,500 for Patient R.C. and $121,000 for Patient J.P.) less credits of $12,296.95, for both Patient R.C. and Patient J.P. As a result, California Neurosurgery suffered damages in the sum of $154,503.05 (80% of California Neurosurgery's usual and customary rate less payments). SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT) (Against all Defendants) 34. California Neurosurgery incorporates by reference and re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 25 here as though set forth in full. 35. As is custom and practice in the health care industry, sometimes medical providers and health plans form express contracts - under which a medical provider agrees to render medically necessary health care to a beneficiary of a 22862 FAC - 12 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 health plan and in return the health plan agrees to pay for such health care - but which omits a price term upon which the parties rely upon industry custom and practice to supply. Industry custom and practice dictates that when a non- contracted medical provider contacts a health plan for authorization to render medical care for a beneficiary of that health plan, that the medical provider and the health plan thereby agree the medical provider will provide medical care to the beneficiary of the health plan and in exchange the health plan agrees to pay for such care at the usual and customary value of such care less the patient/beneficiary's co-payment and annual deductible responsibilities. Typically, the usual and customary value of the medical provider's services are the medical provider's billed rates. 36. On or about April 20, 2017 and on or about April 26, 2017, California Neurosurgery contacted Aetna for the purposes of determining whether Aetna and/or SAP America would be financially responsible for paying for the medical services to be rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P, respectively. In response, Aetna's client services representatives gave California Neurosurgery information confirming that both Patient R.C. ad Patient J.P. belonged to an Aetna health plan sponsored, funded, and/or paid for by SAP America, and did not advise California Neurosurgery that Defendants would not pay less than 80% of the usual and customary value of such care. By such communications, and in accordance with industry custom and practice, an express contract arose between California Neurosurgery and Defendants whereby California Neurosurgery agreed to render medically necessary care to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P. and Defendants agreed to pay at least 80% of the usual and customary value for such care. 37. Consistent with the terms of that express contract, on August 8, 2017, Dr. Onibokun of California Neurosurgery performed medically necessary 22862 FAC - 13 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient R.C. and on May 25, 2017, Dr. Onibokun performed medically necessary and minimally invasive spine surgery upon Patient J.P. 38. California Neurosurgery reasonably relied upon those communications, and upon industry custom and practice. In the absence of such communications and representations by Defendants' agents at Aetna, California Neurosurgery could have made alternative payment arrangements for Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.'s medical care or could have chosen to not provide such services at all. 39. California Neurosurgery rendered all medically necessary procedures and treatment needed by Patients R.C. and Patient J.P. regarding each patient's spine condition, and performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with terms and conditions of the above-described express contract. 40. Defendants breached that express contract by refusing without justification to fully pay their obligation of the $87,500 bill for Patient R.C.'s care at California Neurosurgery and refusing without justification to fully pay their obligation of the $121,000 for Patient J.P.'s care at California Neurosurgery, each amount representing the usual and customary value of such care. As a result, California Neurosurgery suffered damages in the sum of $154,503.05, which represents the 80% of Patient R.C.'s $87,500 bill less credit for a $4,697.35 payment and 80% of Patient J.P.'s $121,000 bill less credit for a $7,599.60 payment. 22862 FAC - 14 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (QUANTUM MERUIT) (Against all Defendants) 41. California Neurosurgery incorporates by reference and re- alleges paragraphs 1 through 25 here as though set forth in full. 42. On or about April 20, 2017 and on or about April 26, 2017 by their words and/or conduct, on behalf of itself and/or as agent for SAP America, Aetna provided assurances to California Neurosurgery that beneficiaries of SAP America (i.e., Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.) had eligibility for medical benefits, specifically for an outpatient procedure such as surgery, and that any medical procedures or treatment rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P. would be paid by Aetna and/or SAP America in an amount of at least 80% of that care’s usual and customary rate. 43. California Neurosurgery’s rendering of medically necessary procedures and treatment, services, supplies, and/or equipment to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P., who were members of the Aetna health plan sponsored, paid for and/or funded by and on behalf of SAP America, and therefore benefited Aetna and SAP America by helping Aetna and SAP America fulfill their contractual and/or statutory duties to provide for and/or arrange for delivery of medical care to their beneficiaries. 44. For rendering the medically necessary procedures and treatment, supplies, and/or equipment to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P., California Neurosurgery reasonably expected full payment of at least 80% of $87,500 for Patient R.C. and payment of at least 80% of $121,000 for Patient J.P. These values 22862 FAC - 15 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 represent the usual and customary value of the care received by each patient. 45. Despite demands from California Neurosurgery to pay for the medically necessary procedures and treatment, services, supplies and/or equipment rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P, Aetna and /or SAP America only paid $4,697.35 for Patient R.C. and only paid $7,599.60 for Patient J.P. 46. After giving credit for that $4,697.35 payment for Patient R.C. and the $7,599.60 payment for Patient J.P., Aetna and SAP America have been unjustly enriched (and California Neurosurgery has been damaged) in the amount of $154,503.05, which represents the total of the remaining unpaid portion of 80% of the usual and customary value of the medical care rendered to Patient R.C. and Patient J.P, collectively, exclusive of prejudgment interest. 47. Aetna and SAP America have been unjustly enriched because they have collected monthly premiums from their beneficiaries (including Patient R.C. and Patient J.P.) for the express purpose of providing for and/or arranging for medical care for their beneficiaries and yet have not fully and properly paid California Neurosurgery. California Neurosurgery’s provision of medically necessary care to both Patient R.C. and Patient J.P. was intended to, and did, benefit Defendants, because it allowed Defendants to fulfill their statutory and/or contractual coverage obligations owed to these patient beneficiaries who paid premiums to Defendants in exchange for such coverage. Because the treatment was provided after California Neurosurgery duly notified Defendants of the services to be performed, Aetna and SAP America obtained said benefit with full appreciation of the facts, making it inequitable for Aetna and/or SAP America to retain that benefit without payment of its reasonable value. Aetna and SAP America should be ordered to pay the remaining sum of $154,503.05 exclusive of 22862 FAC - 16 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 interest. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, California Neurosurgery prays for judgment as follows: For all Causes of Action: 1. for the principal sum of $154,503.05; 2. for interest on such principal sum at the rate of 15% per annum, pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1371; or, in the alternative, for interest on such principal sum at the rate of 10% per annum, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3289; 3. for all costs of suit incurred herein; and, 4. for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: 8 May 2019 LAW OFFICES OF STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO & COLMAN, INC. /s/Geraldine S. Garcia GERALDINE S. GARCIA Attorneys for CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE, a California for profit corporation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 303 North Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91502-3226. On 8 May 2019, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed per the attached Service List. [ ] BY U.S. MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Burbank, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [C.C.P. 1013a(3); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] [ ] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I caused such envelope(s), with overnight Federal Express Delivery Charges to be paid by this firm, to be deposited with the Federal Express Corporation at a regularly maintained facility on the aforementioned date. [C.C.P. 1013(c) 1013(d)] [ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the above-stated document(s) to be served by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the individuals identified above. [C.C.P. 1011(a); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] [ ] BY EXPRESS MAIL: I caused such envelope(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the party(s) shown above, to be deposited in a facility operated by the U.S. Postal Service and regularly maintained for the receipt of Express Mail on the aforementioned date. [C.C.P. 1013(c)] [ ] BY TELECOPIER: Service was effected on all parties at approximately ___:____ am/pm by transmitting said document(s) from this firm's facsimile machine (818/559-4477) to the facsimile machine number(s) shown above. Transmission to said numbers was successful as evidenced by a Transmission Report produced by the machine indicating the documents had been transmitted completely and without error. C.R.C. 2008(e), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(e). OOQQUI-lkWN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [X ] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By emailing true and correct copies to the persons at the electronic notification address(es) shown 0n the accompanying service list. The document(s) was/Were served electronically and the transmission was reported as complete and Without error. [X] State: Ideclare under penalty ofperjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n 8 May 2019 in Burbank, California. /s/ Steve Kim STEVE KIM skim@sacfirm.com SERVICE LIST Curtis S. Leavitt, Esq. Tawinder K. Sandhu Emily Clark, Esq. tsandhu@kennadavleavitt.com KENNADAY LEAVITT OWENSBY PC 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 732-3060 cleavitt@kennadavleavitt.com eclark@kennadayleavitt.com
