SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY
LYDIA ZOU, individually; BLAIR FLEMING, individually,
Plaintiffs, v.
MULTIPLAN, INC., a foreign corporation; REGENCE BLUESHIELD, a Washington corporation, Defendants.
NO. 23-2-18847-1 KNT
DEFENDANTS’ MULTIPLAN, INC. AND REGENCE BLUESHIELD’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Defendants MultiPlan, Inc. (“MultiPlan”) and Regence BlueShield (“Regence”) (collectively “Defendants”), by their undersigned attorneys, Phelps Dunbar LLP and Williams, Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, hereby answer the First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory Judgment (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiffs, Lydia Zou and Blair Fleming (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Unless specifically admitted, Defendants deny all the allegations in the numbered paragraphs of the FAC. To the extent Plaintiffs have included headings or impertinent material that are inappropriate under the Washington State Court Rules, no response is necessary, and any such inappropriate material should be stricken. To the extent any headings or inappropriate material are deemed to require a response, Defendants deny them.
AND NOW answering the individual allegations of the FAC, Defendants respectfully represent and state as follows:
I. Parties1
1.1 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 1.1 and therefore deny them.
1.2 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 1.2 and therefore deny them.
1.3 The allegations in Paragraph 1.3 are admitted in part and denied in part. MultiPlan admits that it is a New York corporation and that it is licensed to conduct business in the State of Washington. MultiPlan admits that it has a registered agent in the State of Washington. The remaining allegations are denied.
1.4 The allegations in Paragraph 1.4 are admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit that Valley Medical Center was the plan sponsor for the health plans at issue for Plaintiffs, and that Valley Medical Center may be a necessary party. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1.4 and therefore deny them.
1.5 TheallegationsinParagraph1.5areadmittedinpartanddeniedinpart.Regenceadmits that it is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington. The remaining allegations are denied.
1.5.1.1 The allegations in Paragraph 1.5.1.1 are admitted.
1.5.1.2 The allegations in Paragraph 1.5.1.2 are denied as written. The Valley Medical CenterHealthplansarewrittendocumentsandarethebestevidenceoftheirownterms,conditions,
1 Defendants have included in their Answer the same headings that Plaintiffs have included in their FAC for ease of reference only. Any allegations contained in the headings of the FAC are denied insofar as they are directed to Defendants.
1.5.1.3 The allegations in Paragraph 1.5.1.3 are denied.
1.5.1.4 The allegations in Paragraph 1.5.1.4 are denied.
1.5.1.5 Paragraph 1.5.1.5 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
II. Jurisdiction and Venue
2.1 Paragraph 2.1 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the Court has jurisdiction over this action.
2.2 Paragraph 2.2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the venue is proper.
2.3 Paragraph 2.3 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
2.4 Paragraph 2.4 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 2.4 and therefore deny them.
2.4.1.1
Paragraph 2.4.1.1 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
2.4.1.2
Paragraph 2.4.1.2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
2.4.1.3 Paragraph 2.4.1.2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
2.5 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 2.5 and therefore deny them.
Washington’s “Made Whole” Rule
3.1 Paragraph 3.1 contains superfluous allegations and legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.2 Paragraph 3.2 contains superfluous allegations and legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.3 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.3 and therefore deny them.
3.4 Paragraph 3.4 contains superfluous allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.5 Paragraph 3.5 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.6 The allegations in Paragraph 3.6 are admitted.
3.7 Paragraph 3.7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.8 Paragraph 3.7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.9 The allegations in Paragraph 3.9 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the quoted provision appears in Group Health Cooperative v. Coon, 193 Wn.2d 841, 856, 447 P.3d 139, 146 (2019). The remaining allegations are denied.
3.10 Paragraph 3.10 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.11 Paragraph 3.11 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is admitted that ERISA refers to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. It is also admitted that ERISA preempts state law. The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.12 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.12 and therefore deny them.
3.13 Paragraph 3.13 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written.
3.14 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.14 and therefore deny them.
Background on MultiPlan
3.15 The allegations in Paragraph 3.15 are denied.
3.16 The allegations in Paragraph 3.16 are denied.
3.17 The allegations in Paragraph 3.17 are denied as written.
3.18 Paragraph 3.18 contains a statement that allegedly appeared on MultiPlan’s website at some unspecified time in the past. Defendants deny that the statement currently appears at https://www.multiplan.us/company/ as alleged by Plaintiffs.
3.19 Paragraph 3.19 contains a statement that allegedly appeared on MultiPlan’s website at some unspecified time in the past. Defendants deny that the statement currently appears at https://www.multiplan.us/ as alleged by Plaintiffs.
3.20 The allegations in Paragraph 3.20 are denied.
Background – Lydia Zou Injuries
3.21 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.21 and therefore deny them.
3.22 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.22 and therefore deny them.
3.23 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.23 and therefore deny them.
3.24 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.24 and therefore deny them.
3.25 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.25 and therefore deny them.
3.26 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.26 and therefore deny them.
3.27 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.27 and therefore deny them.
3.28 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.28 and therefore deny them.
3.29 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.29 and therefore deny them.
3.30 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.30 and therefore deny them.
3.31 The allegations in Paragraph 3.31 are admitted in part and denied in part. Upon informationandbelief,Safeco offered Dr. Zou$250,000inpolicybenefits. Defendantsarewithout sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore deny them.
3.32 Defendants deny the first sentence of this Paragraph and Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore deny them.
3.33 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.33are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that Dr. Zou emailed MultiPlan on February 2, 2023, and stated, “I have not been made whole by thissettlement.”That correspondenceis awritten documentandisthebest evidenceofitscontents.
Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore deny them.
Timeline of Misconduct
3.34 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.34are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on February 3, 2023, Lindsay Schekhtayan emailed Dr. Zou and stated, “I will need to do a complete verification on claims paid before I can consider any reduction and/or waiver.” That correspondence is a written document and is the best evidence of its contents. Except as admitted above, the remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.35 The allegations in Paragraph 3.35 are denied.
3.36 The allegations in Paragraph 3.36 are denied as written. The correspondence referenced in Paragraph 3.36 is a written document and is the best evidence of its contents.
3.37 The allegations in Paragraph 3.37 are denied as written.
3.38 It is admitted that Dr. Zou responded on February 12, 2023. That correspondence is a written document and is the best evidence of its contents The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.39 The allegations in Paragraph 3.39 are denied.
3.40 The allegations in Paragraph 3.40 are denied as written.
3.41 The referenced written communications are the best evidence of their contents such that no response is required. But to the extent a response is required, these allegations are generally admitted.
3.42 The referenced written communications are the best evidence of their contents such that no response is required. But to the extent a response is required, these allegations are generally admitted.
3.43 The referenced written communications are the best evidence of their contents such that no response is required. But to the extent a response is required, these allegations are generally admitted.
3.44 The referenced written communications are the best evidence of their contents such that no response is required. But to the extent a response is required, these allegations are generally admitted.
3.45 It is admitted that Mary Wagner wrote Dr. Zou on April 19, 2023, and stated, “The plan has requested a 50/50 split of the total settlement funds available resulting in reimbursement to the plan in the amount of $125,000.00.” The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.46 The allegations in Paragraph 3.46 are denied as written.
3.47 The referenced written communications are the best evidence of their contents such that no response is required. But to the extent a response is required, these allegations are generally admitted.
3.48 The allegations in Paragraph 3.48 are denied as written.
3.49 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.49are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on May 9, 2023, Dr. Zou wrote MultiPlan for an update. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore deny them.
3.50 It is admitted that Mary Wagner emailed Dr. Zou on May 11, 2023 and stated, “Your health insurance plan Is a self-funded ERISA plan and governed by Federal law. Thiringer does not apply in this matter.” The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.51 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.51are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that Dr. Zou’s health plan was not an ERISA plan. The remaining allegations are denied.
3.52 The allegations in Paragraph 3.52 are admitted.
3.53 Paragraph 3.53 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is admitted that Dr. Zou’s health plan was not an ERISA plan.
3.54 The allegations in Paragraph 3.54 are denied.
3.55 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.55are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on May 11, 2023, Dr. Zou wrote MultiPlan. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore deny them.
3.56 The allegations in Paragraph 3.56 are denied as written.
3.57 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.57are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on May 19, 2023, Dr. Zou wrote MultiPlan and asked MultiPlan to confirm closure of the subrogation claim by May 26, 2023. The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.58 The allegations in Paragraph 3.58 are admitted.
3.59 The allegations in Paragraph 3.59 are denied as written.
3.60 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.60are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on May 30, 2023, Dr. Zou wrote MultiPlan and asked MultiPlan to confirm closure of the subrogation claim by June 2, 2023. The remaining allegations are denied as written
3.61 The allegations in Paragraph 3.61 are denied as written.
3.62 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.62are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that Dr. Zou’s attorney sent MultiPlan a demand letter dated June 30, 2023. That correspondence is a written document and is the best evidence of its own contents. The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.63 The allegations in Paragraph 3.63 are admitted.
3.64 The allegations in Paragraph 3.64 are denied as written.
3.65 The allegations in Paragraph 3.65 are denied.
3.66 The allegations in Paragraph 3.66 are denied as written.
Pattern and Practice of Deception
3.67 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 3.67 and therefore deny them.
3.68 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.68are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that MultiPlan Recovery Analyst Laura Landgrave sent a “Notice of ERISA Lien” letter dated January 16, 2023, to Ms. Fleming’s attorney. The letter provided, in part, “Regence BlueShield of Washington is a self-funded plan under the protection of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.” The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.69 The allegations in Paragraph 3.69 are admitted.
3.70 Theallegations in Paragraph 3.70are admittedin part and deniedinpart. It is admitted that on August 31, 2023, Kathleen Montiel of MultiPlan stated via email to Ms. Fleming’s counsel that “Valley Medical Center is an Erisa policy.” The remaining allegations are denied as written.
3.71 The allegations in Paragraph 3.71 are denied as written.
3.72 Defendants are denied as written.
3.73 The allegations in Paragraph 3.73 are denied as written.
3.74 The allegations in Paragraph 3.74 are admitted.
3.75 Paragraph 3.75 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
3.76 The allegations in Paragraph 3.76 are denied.
3.77 Defendants deny all factual allegations of Paragraph 3.77 and aver that the remaining allegations are conclusions of law to which no response is required.
3.78 Paragraph 3.78 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied as written and denied.
IV. Liability – Consumer Protection Act
4.1 The allegations in Paragraph 4.1 are denied.
4.2 The allegations in Paragraph 4.2 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the quoted provision appears in Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009). The remaining allegations are denied as written.
4.3 The allegations in Paragraph 4.3 are denied.
4.4 The allegations in Paragraph 4.4 are denied.
4.5 The allegations in Paragraph 4.5 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
V. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and Expectancy
5.1 Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 5.1 and therefore deny them.
5.2 The allegations in Paragraph 5.2 are denied.
5.3 The allegations in Paragraph 5.3 are denied.
5.4 The allegations in Paragraph 5.4 are denied.
VI. Damages
6.1 Paragraph 6.1 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
6.2 Paragraph 6.2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
6.3 The allegations in Paragraph 6.3 are denied.
VII. Declaratory Relief
7.1 The allegations in Paragraph 7.1 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
VIII. Injunctive Relief
8.1 The allegations in Paragraph 8.1, including all subparagraphs, are denied.
8.1.1.1 The allegations in Paragraph 8.1.1.1 are denied.
8.1.1.2 The allegations in Paragraph 8.1.1.2 are denied.
8.1.1.3 The allegations in Paragraph 8.1.1.3 are denied.
8.1.1.4 The allegations in Paragraph 8.1.1.4 are denied.
8.2 The allegations in Paragraph 8.2 are denied.
8.3 The allegations in Paragraph 8.3 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
IX. Application of Illinois or New York Punitive Damages
9.1 The allegations in Paragraph 9.1 are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some of the employees involved in Plaintiffs’ subrogation claims are located in Illinois. The remaining allegations are denied.
9.2 The allegations in Paragraph 9.2 are admitted.
9.3 Paragraph 9.3 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are admitted.
9.4 The allegations in Paragraph 9.4 are denied.
9.5 The allegations in Paragraph 9.5 are denied.
9.6 The allegations in Paragraph 9.6 are denied.
X. Issue Class Action
10.1 The allegations in Paragraph 10.1 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that a class should be certified in this matter.
10.2 The allegations in Paragraph 10.2 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that a class should be certified in this matter, and
further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
10.3 The allegations in Paragraph 10.3 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that a class should be certified in this matter, and further deny that Defendants are liable for the conduct alleged.
10.4 The allegations in Paragraph 10.4 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that a class should be certified in this matter, and further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
10.5 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 10.5, including all subparagraphs, are denied.
10.5.1.1 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.1 are denied.
10.5.1.2 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.2 are denied.
10.5.1.3 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.3 are denied.
10.5.1.4 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.4 are denied.
10.5.1.5 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.5 are denied.
10.5.1.6 The allegations in Paragraph 10.5.1.6 are denied.
10.6 The allegations in Paragraph 10.6 do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that a class should be certified in this matter, and further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested.
10.7 Numerosity. Paragraph 10.7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8 Commonality. Paragraph 10.8 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations in Paragraph 10.8, including all subparagraphs, are denied.
10.8.1.1 Paragraph 10.8.1.1 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.2 Paragraph 10.8.1.2 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.3 Paragraph 10.8.1.3 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.4 Paragraph 10.8.1.4 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.5 Paragraph 10.8.1.5 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.6 Paragraph 10.8.1.6 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.7 Paragraph 10.8.1.7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.8 Paragraph 10.8.1.8 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.8.1.9 Paragraph 10.8.1.9 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.9 Typicality. Paragraph 10.9 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.10 Adequacy. Paragraph 10.10 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.11 Predominance. Paragraph 10.11 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied.
10.12 Superiority. The allegations in Paragraph 10.12 are denied.
10.12.1.1 The allegations in Paragraph 10.12.1.1 are denied.
10.12.1.2 The allegations in Paragraph 10.12.1.2 are denied as written.
10.12.1.3 The allegations in Paragraph 10.12.1.3 are denied.
XI. Prayer for Relief
The allegations contained in the remaining paragraphs 1-13 under the title “Prayer for Relief” do not require a response from Defendants. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny each and every numbered paragraph 1-13 and further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief, including the relief requested.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, having fully answered Plaintiffs’ FAC, request that it be dismissed in its entirely, that Plaintiffs take nothing thereby, and that Defendants be awarded their fees and costs.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND NOW, setting forth its affirmative defenses, Defendants respectfully represent and state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary and/or indispensable parties, including the self-funded governmental plan(s) and the governmental plan sponsors, for whose benefit subrogation recovery was sought.
2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part under principles of equitable estoppel, laches, waiver, justification, notification, ratification, confirmation, accord and satisfaction, course and conduct of dealing, acquiescence and/or consent.
3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations.
4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part under the principles of release and/or setoff.
5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiffs’ own unclean hands and/or pursuant to the doctrine of inexcusable neglect.
6. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were solely and proximately caused by their own intentional actions, inactions, fault, and/or negligence, which serves to defeat or proportionately diminish Plaintiffs’ recovery, if any.
7. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused by the fault of others over whom Defendants have no control and for whom Defendants have no responsibility.
8. Upon information and belief, to the extent that Plaintiffs have sustained any damage, loss, or injury inconnection with any of the acts and/or occurrences transcribed, described, or referenced in the FAC (which is specifically and expressly denied), Plaintiffs have failed to undertake appropriate and reasonable steps to prevent or otherwise mitigate any such damage, loss, or injury and/or otherwise acted in such a manner as to aggravate or exacerbate any such damage, loss, or injury, barring in whole or in part any claim by Plaintiffs to recover for any of the damages alleged in the FAC.
9. Defendants have not engaged in any conduct or committed any act or omission that was or could have been the direct, legal, and/or proximate cause of any damage, loss, or injury to Plaintiffs.
10. At all pertinent times, Defendants acted in good faith and without malice or intent to injure Plaintiffs.
11. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount from Defendants as damages, including any treble, exemplary, or punitive damages.
12. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees, statutory interest, legal expenses and/or court costs from Defendants.
13. Plaintiff’s FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants are without knowledge of which, if any, additional affirmative defenses may be supported by the facts developed through further investigation and discovery. Accordingly, Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend and/or supplement the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses at a later time to assert any matter constituting an exception, avoidance, or affirmative defense, including, without limitation, those matters set forth in the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, as may become known to Defendants during the course of this litigation.
DEFENDANTS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendants, MultiPlan, Inc. and Regence BlueShield, demand judgment by this Honorable Court as follows:
(a) Dismissing the FAC against MultiPlan, Inc. and Regence BlueShield with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ cost;
(b) Awarding MultiPlan, Inc. and Regence BlueShield their reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in defending this matter; and
(c) Granting MultiPlan, Inc. and Regence BlueShield such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
this 23rd day of August, 2024.
s/ Jeffery M. Wells
Jeffery M. Wells, WSBA #45840
Williams, Kastner & Gibbs PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 4100
Seattle, WA 98101-2380
Phone: (206) 628-6600
Email: jwells@williamskastner.com
Errol J. King, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Taylor J. Crousillac (pro hac vice)
Brittany H. Alexander (pro hac vice)
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
II City Plaza
400 Convention Street, Suite 1100
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
Telephone: (225) 376-0207
Errol.King@phelps.com
Taylor.Crousillac@phelps.com
Brittany.Alexander@phelps.com
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be delivered to the following counsel of record in the manner indicated:
Counsel for Plaintiffs Lydia Zou and Blair Fleming:
Andrew Ackley, WSBA #41752
Paul Stritmatter, WSBA #4532
Lisa Benedetti, WSBA #43194
Stritmatter Kessler Koehler Moore 3600 15th Avenue West, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98119
Phone: 206-448-1777
Email: andrew@stritmatter.com pauls@stritmatter.com lisa@stritmatter.com
Debra M. Watt (debbie@stritmatter.com) Jamie Kessler (JamieK@stritmatter.com)
Via electronic mail
Via U.S. Mail
Via Legal Messenger
Via Overnight Courier
Via E-service
DATED this 23rd day of August, 2024, at Seattle, Washington.
/s/ Carol A. Cannon Carol A. Cannon Legal Assistant