THE ENTREKIN LAW FIRM

Transcription

1 Michael K Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Electronically Filed *** S. Bagnall, Deputy 1/30/2014 3:16:00 PM Filing ID B. Lance Entrekin (#16172) THE ENTREKIN LAW FIRM One East Camelback Road, #710 Phoenix, Arizona (602) lance@entrekinlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg (#19338) LEVENBAUM TRACHTENBERG, PLC 362 North Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona (602) gt@ltinjurylaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AMBER WINTERS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. IN AND FOR MARICOPA COUNTY Plaintiffs, BANNER HEALTH NETWORK, et al., Defendants. Civil Case No. CV PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES (The Honorable J. Richard Gama) Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an award of their attorneys fees herein. This application is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, along with the sworn statements attached hereto, and the court s record in this proceeding. I. OVERVIEW MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES It is well-established that the general rule for fee-shifting requires a party to prevail on a contractual claim or have the benefit of a fee-shifting statute. For certified Rule 23(b)(3) class actions an exception to this general rule is the common fund doctrine, which allows attorneys fees to be paid from the common fund created by the settlement or judgment. See, e.g., Charles I. Friedman PC v. Microsoft, 213 Ariz. 344, 141 P.3d 824, 831 (App. 2006). For certified Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, like this one, where primarily injunctive relief is sought and no common fund is created, the comparable exception to the general rule for fee-

2 shifting is known as the private attorney general doctrine. Arnold v. Dept. of Health Services, 775 P.2d 521, 160 Ariz. 593, (1989) (successful certified 23(b)(2), ARCP class action justifies fee award pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine). Plaintiffs herein are a certified Rule 23(b)(2) class who have obtained, by way of the Court s recent summary judgment ruling, the legal basis for all injunctive relief requested and respectfully move for an award of fees, including an appropriate multiplier, pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. See generally, ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FEES MANUAL 6.4 (4 th ed. 2003) (discussing the private attorney general doctrine in Arizona). II. LAW A. The Private Attorney General Doctrine The private attorney general doctrine was adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court for cases like this one. Under this equitable rule, an award of attorneys fees is proper when a party has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance. Arnold, 775 P.2d at 537, 160 Ariz. at 609. The first requirement of the private attorney general doctrine is easily met in a class action. In fact, the private attorney general doctrine applies most frequently in successful class actions seeking injunctive relief. See, e.g., id. (applying the doctrine in a Rule 23(b)(2) class action involving indigent chronically mentally ill persons). The second requirement of the private attorney general doctrine is met as a matter of law if, such as in this case, the vindication of the right required a direct challenge to a statute adopted by the Arizona Legislature, because public enforcement would then be impossible. Arizona Center for Law v. Hassell, 837 P.2d 158, 172 Ariz. 356, 371 (App. 1991); see also, Kadish v. Arizona, 868 P.2d 335, 177 Ariz. 322, 330 (App. 1993). Likewise, the private attorney general doctrine applies to private entities every bit as much as it applies to governmental entities. 1 And significantly, it is no defense against the private [W]e do not find that the exclusive purpose of the private attorney general doctrine is to impose the cost of vindicating public rights on the public itself. Awarding attorneys fees against private defendants in appropriate cases will promote important public rights to the same extent as awarding fees Page 2 of 10

3 attorney general doctrine for a party to argue that they were merely following a duly enacted state statute. Cf. Kadish, 868 P.2d at 342, 177 Ariz. at 329 n.4. Such an argument has been rejected by Arizona state courts and by the federal courts as well. 2 B. Determining Fees Under the Private Attorney General Doctrine In determining private attorney general doctrine fees when the fee agreement does not set an hourly rate, the lodestar method applies. The lodestar is the product of the hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate of compensation. This method is generally used where fees are not actually paid on an hourly basis and where the prevailing party does not have an agreement with its counsel setting the attorney s billing rate for the representation. The private attorney general doctrine imposes no express limitation on the hourly reimbursement rate to be applied in making an award. E.g., Kadish, 868 P.2d at 345, 177 Ariz. at 332. In determining an appropriate hourly rate, the Court should rely upon Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 183, 673 P.2d 927 (App. 1983). The China Doll case directs courts to consider (1) the qualities of the advocate; (2) the character of the work done; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer; and (4) the result. China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 187, 673 P.2d at 931. These matters are addressed in accompanying sworn statements, Exhibits 1-6. C. Pre-Filing and Post-Judgment Work Are Recoverable Unsuccessful parties sometimes argue that pre-filing work or post-judgment work should not be recoverable. Courts around the country, however, have rejected these arguments. Pre-filing work is recoverable. E.g., Webb v. County Board of Education, 471 U.S. 234, 243 (1985). Postjudgment work is also recoverable. E.g., Penn. v. Del Valley Cit. Council, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986) against governmental defendants. Hassell, 837 P.2d at 173, 172 Ariz. at Appellees argue on appeal that fees should not be awarded against them because they were merely obeying a duly-enacted statute before it was found to be unconstitutional.... Although Hassell did not discuss this argument, the decision in Hassell effectively put this argument to rest because the fee award there was in part against a state agency that sought to uphold a duly-enacted statute. Federal courts have reached similar conclusions. Kadish, 868 P.2d at 342, 177 Ariz. at 329 n.4 (citations omitted). Page 3 of 10

4 Arizona courts have recognized this as well. First Nat l Bank of Ariz. v. Continental Bank, 138 Ariz. 194, 200, 673 P.2d 938, 944 (App. 1983) (holding that pre-litigation research, investigation and evaluation of the merits is recoverable); China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 188, 673 P.2d at 932 (preparing post-decision motions, responses and replies is recoverable). D. Work on a Separate but Related Litigation is Recoverable, As Long as it Contributed to the Successful Outcome Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendants will take issue with inclusion of attorney time for the related federal court action. In case this Court is not already aware, prior to filing this action, Plaintiffs filed an identical case in the United States District Court and, when subject matter jurisdiction became an issue, they voluntarily dismissed and re-filed this case in state court. 3 The two cases made the same claims against the same parties and the two originatingcomplaints track each other closely. Most of the fundamental research was done prior to the first case and was the basis for the later successful outcome in this court. See, S&R Props. v. Maricopa County, 178 Ariz. 491, 506, 875 P.2d 150, 165 (App. 1993) (preparation of initial pleadings is recoverable). Indeed, this prior work was along the lines discussed in First Nat l Bank of Ariz., 138 Ariz. at 200, 673 P.2d at 944 (App. 1983), which approved recovery for time spent doing prelitigation research, investigation and evaluation of the merits. But in large part, the fees for work in the District Court action is recoverable here because it is related and, more important, brought about the ultimate successful result. This sentiment is reflected in the Ninth Circuit s common sense approach to the issue and applies with equal force here: The question presented is whether the district court s equitable jurisdiction allows it to award fees for hours spent working on something other than the present litigation. We hold that it does. The level of relatedness to the ongoing litigation Despite jurisdiction being established by Lizer v. Eagle Air Med. Corp., 308 F.Supp.2d 1006 (D.Ariz. 2004), and other federal cases, Defendants raised the issue in the United States District Court, arguing that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether a federal law preempted a state law where all the parties were private entities. Rather than risk having to litigate an inevitable appeal of the issue, further delaying the much-needed relief sought by the class, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action and re-filed in state court. Page 4 of 10

5 is of less importance than the extent to which the non-litigation work was calculated to and in fact did bring about [the successful result]. Wininger v. SI Management L.P., 301 F.3d 1115, 1121 n.3 (9 th Cir. 2002). Thus, like any prefiling work whether litigation or non-litigation if the work brought about the ultimate successful result it should be recoverable. E. Recoverable Fees are Not to Be Segregated by Legal Theory Unsuccessful parties sometimes try to dissuade courts from awarding fees for time spent working on (i) claims that are not eligible for an attorneys fee award or (ii) on theories other than the one which produced the successful outcome. This is wrong, however, where the claims that are not eligible for an attorneys fee award or unsuccessful claims are intertwined with, or based on, or arise out of claims that do justify a fee award. Smith v. American Express, 179 Ariz. 131, 141, 876 P.2d 1166, 1176 (App. 1994). While this is not likely to be hotly debated in this case, numerous courts have concluded that, where a common core of facts gives rise to multiple legal theories, and where a party has accomplished the result sought in the litigation, fees should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories. China Doll, 138 Ariz. at 189, 673 P.2d at 933; see also, Marsu v. Walt Disney Co., 185 F.3d 932, 939 (9 th Cir. 1999); Watson v. City of Riverside, 300 F.3d 1092, (9 th Cir. 2002); Cabrales v. City of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9 th Cir. 1991). In this case, of course, there was a common core of facts for all of the intertwined claims and the Plaintiffs accomplished the result sought, which was to put an end to the hospitals unlawful balance billing practice. F. Paralegal and Law Clerk Time is Recoverable at Prevailing Market Rates Paralegal, law clerk and legal assistant time is recoverable at prevailing market rates. Continental Townhouses East Unit One Ass n v. Brockbank, 152 Ariz. 537, 733 P.2d 1120 (App. 1986); Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 284 (1989). In this case, there was meaningful and important work done by various paralegal and office staff, all of which should be recoverable. / / / / / / Page 5 of 10

6 III. DISCUSSION A. This Case Required Private Enforcement, Benefitted a Large Number of People and Has Substantial Societal Importance This case required private enforcement, as a matter of law, because it required a direct challenge to a statute adopted by the Arizona Legislature. Kadish, 868 P.2d at 342, 177 Ariz. at ; Hassell, 837 P.2d 158, 172 Ariz. 356, 371. Likewise, there can be no serious doubt that the case benefitted a very large number of people and had tremendous societal importance. To that end, the Court should consider the 120-plus sworn statements from individual attorneys from around the State of Arizona that Plaintiffs attached to their Reply Supporting the Motion to Certify the Class (filed 1/29/13) ( Exhibit A ). Every one of these 120-plus sworn statements attests that preventing the ongoing unlawful balance billing of personal injury recoveries would confer a substantial benefit upon [indigent] clients which make up the certified class in this case. Likewise, the Court should consider the sworn statement from the President of the Arizona Association for Justice, the only Arizona bar association solely dedicated to protecting rights of injured parties, filed on behalf of its 700 members. Id. ( Exhibit B ). That sworn statement describes the extreme financial pressure faced by the AHCCCS-clients who virtually all buckle under the pressure and reluctantly pay hospitals to withdraw unlawful liens so that they the injured indigent can rightfully access much-needed settlement funds. These sworn statements reflect a chorus that, most importantly, vindicates the rights of thousands of indigent patients who have and will benefit greatly from the Court s determination in this case. In fact, the tremendous societal importance of this issue is magnified further still in Arizona in light of the large expansion of AHCCCS, as enacted by the Arizona legislature last Session. Arnold v. Dept. of Health Services, 775 P.2d 521, 160 Ariz. 593 (1989), is the seminal case for awarding attorneys fees under the private attorney general doctrine in class actions certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), ARCP. Like this case, it involved a class action to enjoin state hospitals to comply with the law in providing certain required treatment for the chronically Page 6 of 10

7 mentally ill, almost all of whom were indigent. Id. at This case is similar on the relevant issues and an award of fees is similarly appropriate. B. There is a Strong Equitable Basis for an Award of Fees and a Multiplier Just like the analogous common fund doctrine, the private attorney general doctrine is an equitable doctrine. Arnold, 775 P.2d at 537, 160 Ariz. at 609; Kadish, 868 P.2d at 342, 177 Ariz. at ; Hassell, 837 P.2d 158, 172 Ariz. 356, 371. As in Arnold, Kadish and Hassell, this case presents a strong equitable basis for an award of fee and, in light of the risks taken by Plaintiffs counsel, is an appropriate case for the Court to apply a multiplier of 2.0 to the lodestar fees. Charles I. Friedman PC v. Microsoft, 213 Ariz. 344, 141 P.3d 824, 831 (App. 2006) (sustaining the trial court s application of a multiplier of 3.42 to arrive at an attorney fee award of $19,132,728). 1. It is Equitable to Award Plaintiffs Their Fees Defendants Cross Motion for Summary Judgment made much of the fact that the unlawful practice at issue had been going on for approximately 30 years. Indeed, as the Court itself has noted, Defendants argued that their balance billing practice was not unlawful because otherwise something would have been done about it before now. See, Minute Entry (1/17/14) (citing Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment). The main reason it has gone on so long, however, is that the class members are indigent and cannot pay an attorney, there is no fee-shifting statute regarding Arizona balance billing liens applicable here and defense counsel has a long history of defeating any challenge to the hospitals AHCCCS billing practices. As the Court can see, many attorneys were aware of this and chose not to take on the attendant burdens and risks during the last three decades. Plaintiffs counsel, both of whom are in law firms of less than five lawyers, have committed enormous time and effort for three years and counting, in order to bring Arizona hospitals into compliance with federal law and in so doing, have vindicated an important right of indigent patients. The dozens of lead plaintiffs in this case have also gone without their personal injury recoveries for three years and counting, something they could ill-afford to do. It, therefore, is equitable to award Plaintiffs their fees. Page 7 of 10

8 It is Equitable to Require Defendants to Pay Attorneys Fees The Arizona federal district court held the balance billing practice at issue was a violation of federal law ten years ago in Lizer v. Eagle Air Med. Corp., 308 F.Supp.2d 1006, (D.Ariz. 2004). What was the hospitals reaction? A few months after Lizer, the attorneys who handle collections for almost all of the Defendant hospitals namely, the attorneys who represent the Defendant hospitals in this action circulated a memorandum attached to Plaintiffs Complaint. E.g., Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit 2 (filed 12/6/12). The memorandum states that the Lizer decision was incorrect and falsely states that Arizona has obtained a formal waiver from the federal government allowing Arizona hospitals to assert balance billing liens in this context. This was untrue. 4 Defendants brazenly ignored Lizer and since that time, on information and belief, have collected over $50,000,000 from indigent Arizona patients in violation of federal law. As this Court previously determined, Defendants are not being required to disgorge any of those unlawfully collected funds and, if Plaintiffs receive every attorney-hour they have requested at their requested hourly rate, that would average roughly $35,000 per Defendant hospital, before application of a multiplier. That sum would be much lower if Defendants had not repeatedly drawn out this litigation, refused to make basic admissions or stipulations, made numerous collateral and procedural attacks, and refused in writing to meet with Plaintiffs for mediation. An award of fees against Defendants is equitable. 3. It is Appropriate to Apply a Multiplier of 2.0 to the Lodestar [T]he majority view is that a multiplier can be used, primarily to compensate class counsel for the risk in undertaking and conducting the litigation. Charles I. Friedman PC, 213 Ariz. at 353, 141 P.3d at 833 (emphasis added). That is, a court has discretion to apply a multiplier to the attorney s fees calculation to compensate for the risk of nonpayment. Id. (quoting Fischel 4 Plaintiffs sent Defendants Requests for Admission on these and other facts during discovery in this case. Defendants refused to admit, among other things, that Arizona had no waiver from the federal government. Page 8 of 10

9 v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc. of the United States, 307 F.3d 997, 1008 (9 th Cir. 2002)). Courts have also considered the results obtained and the quality of the legal services. Id. A multiplier is appropriate in this case due to the risk of nonpayment for the enormous investment of time by Plaintiffs counsel, in addition to the results obtained and quality of the legal services. As described in the accompanying sworn statements of Plaintiffs counsel, this case required counsel to devote approximately 25% of their working hours to this case for the last three years. That work was done not only without the promise of any compensation, but at considerable risk of nonpayment and despite overt statements from the opposition that the case would be extremely hard-fought and subject to unending appeals (which is fully expected). It suffices to say that the results obtained are extremely gratifying and that the Court was pleased with the quality of the legal work performed by Plaintiffs counsel. Although the Charles I. Friedman PC case was a Rule 23(b)(3) common fund class action, both the common fund and private attorney general doctrine are sufficiently similar equitable theories that extension of the holding in Charles I. Friedman PC to Rule 23(b)(2) class actions implicating the private attorney general doctrine is logical. After all, why would it be any more or less appropriate to reward those who take risks to remedy unjust enrichment (i.e., the focus of the common fund theory), than it would be to reward those who take equal risks to vindicate important public rights (i.e., the focus of the private attorney general doctrine )? See, ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FEES MANUAL (4 th ed. 2003). Accordingly, given the high degree of risk involved in this case, Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that a multiplier of 2.0 is reasonable and appropriate. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request an award of their attorneys fees of $668, to The Entrekin Law Firm and $712, to Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC with a multiplier of 2.0 for a total of $1,337, and $1,425,252.50, respectively, against the Defendant hospitals, jointly and severally. / / / / / / Page 9 of 10

10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30 th day of January, Copy of the foregoing e-filed through TurboCourt and copies mailed this 30 th day of January, 2014, to: Christopher Hering, Esq. Cameron C. Artigue, Esq. Gammage & Burnham PLC Two North Central Avenue, 15 th Floor Phoenix, Arizona Attorney for Defendants L. Eric Dowell, Esq. Kerry S. Martin, Esq. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C East Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona Attorney for Defendants By: /s/ Lisa Balbini By: /s/ Geoffrey Trachtenberg Geoffrey Trachtenberg (#19338) Levenbaum Trachtenberg PLC 362 North Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona By: /s/ Lance Entrekin B. Lance Entrekin (#16172) The Entrekin Law Firm One East Camelback Road, #710 Phoenix, Arizona Attorneys for Plaintiffs Page 10 of 10

11 EXHIBIT 1

12 DECLARATTON PURSUANT TO RULE 80(r), ARCP 1. My name is Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg, Esq., and I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Arizona (2001), Califomia (1998) and Utah (2010), where I predominately represent injured persons at Levenbaum Trachtenberg PLC. 2. Along with B. Lance Entrekin, Esq., I am lead counsel to a certified class of Plaintiffs in the suit styled Winters et al. v. Banner et al., Case No. CV , Maricopa County Superior Court. Recently, the Court granted summary judgment in the key dispute in that litigation and, accordingly, we have moved for an award of fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. Because all of our clients are indigent and unable to pay, our retainer agreements with our clients do not set an hourly rate. 3. In situations where the Court chooses to award fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine and no hourly fee is set forth in the retainer, the Court is to determine a reasonable hourly rate based upon: a) the qualities of the advocate; b) the character of the work done; c) the work actually performed by the lawyer; and d) the result. Kadish v. Arizona,868 P.2d 335,177 Ariz.322,332 (App. 1993); Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc.,l38 Ariz.I83, 187, 673P.2d927 (App.1983). QUALITIES OF THE ADVOCATE 4. I graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley in 1997, among the top of my class. Upon graduation, I served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gary L. Taylor, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then in 1998, began private practice with the law frm of Irell & Manella, LLP in Newport Beach, California. 5. I've been recognized for a number of years by Martindale-Hubbell (AV-

13 Preeminent Rated), Super Lawyers (listed in "Alizona Top 50" for 2014),AWO (10.0 rated) and Best Lawyers ir U.S. News &.World Report. Recently, the Board of Legal Specialization for the Arizona State Bar recommended me for "specialist certification" in Personal Injury and V/rongful Death. 6. I am currently a managing partner at Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC where, since 2002, I've focused on personal injury, commercial litigation and appeals. I'm a member of numerous professional bar associations in Arizona, California and Utah, and have served on the Board of Directors and Executive Board of the Arizona Association for Justice, also known as the ArizonaTrial Lawyers Association, for approximately ten (10) years. 7. I've been a Judge Pro Tempore withthe Maricopa County Superior Court for the past nine (9) years, I've served on the State Bar of Arizona Fee Arbitration Committee and I was elected by colleagues in Maricopa County to serve on the Board of Govemors with the State Bar of Arizona for the past three (3) years. I have taught many Continuing Legal Education courses on Arizona lien law, among other things, and am the co-author of the AruzoNR PEnsoNeL IN ury LreN Law & PnacrrcE GurDE, a publication on third-party recovery rights. Recently, I've been appointed as an Adjunct Professor at the Arizona Summit Law School, served as Chairman of the Rules Committee for the State Bar of Arizona, and spearheaded the amendmentto Ethical Rule 1.15 (eff. 1llll4), Arizona Rules of Professional Responsibility. 8. I have extensive first-chair trial experience in complex litigation against large corporate entities and have experience handling class actions. I've served as local plaintiffs co-counsel in In re Apollo Group, Inc., Case No. CV PHX-JAT, 2

14 United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in which the 2008 jury verdict of $277MM (upheld by the Ninth Circuit) is believed to be the largest in favor of an investor class since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") in I've also participated in successful class action defense in Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. J.P. Morgan & co., Inc., et al., case Nos. GIC and GIC734001, san Diego Superior Court, which concerned alleged manipulation of the price of copper on the London Metals Exchange (LME) and on the American copper futures exchange (COMEX) for class representatives in 19 states. 9. As an Arizona attorney, I've handled many complex cases and several of my appellate cases have set important precedents. Southwest Fiduciary, Inc., v. AHCCCS,226 AÅ2.404,249 P.3d 1104 (App. 20rt) (applying Ahlborn,cited inthis Court's Minute Entry of llltll4,to Arizona statutes; represented the prevailing party and awarded attomeys fees); Progressive v. Blaud,2I2 Ariz.359,132 p.3d 298 (App. 2006) (interpretation of Arizona's UM statute; represented the prevailing party); Jeter v. Mayo Clinic,2ll Ariz.386,l2l P.3d 1256 (App. 2005) (flrrst published case in the nation to address claims for negligent loss of frozen embryos; represented the prevailing party). CHARACTER OF THE WORK DONE 10. For 30 years, hospitals in Arizona have engaged in the unlawful and unsavory practice of collecting from AHCCCS patients in violation of federal law. It is estimated that over this time period these hospitals, collectively, have grafted hundreds of millions of dollars from these AHCCCS patients-who are the poorest and most vulnerable class imaginable. 11. The task of taking on these hospitals and ending the unlawful billing ^J

15 practice was herculean in time, complexity, and resources. It not only required attorneys willing to work 1,000s of hours without any promise of compensation or cost reimbursement, but it required a collection of class representatives who had the intestinal fortitude--despite their desperate and dire conditions-to say "no!" to hospitals who teased them with access to their settlement funds using "offers of compromise" where no claim should have been made in the first place. Saying "no!" to the hospitals meant, in most cases, that the patients' own settlement funds were largely or completely frozen pending the outcome of this litigation þursuant to ER 1.15). This was something that many class representatives found impossible to understand-something many still do not understand today-and has resulted in even greater pressure and work in connection with managing the class. 12. This, coupled with the complexity of the issues and dogged determination by the hospitals to keep their "golden goose" alive by raising every conceivable procedural and collateral attack, and refusing basic stipulations or admissions, has made this case extremely burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. To be sure, like the Court in its nearly 1O-page ruling, Plaintiffs were required to sift through argument-afterargument and address each red herring until there was none left. This process required many hours of research and sifting through piles of case law, regulations, letters, the AHCCCS Plan, and the Federal Register, among other things, all to reach to conclusion that Defendants' promise-made in open court-that everyone would ultimately be "surprised" by their evidence or authority was nothing more than another hollow, meritless claim. 13. A testament to the complex and burdensome character of the work is that 4

16 120-plus attorneys from around the State of Arizona, including the president of the Arizona Association for Justice, submitted sworn statements in support of the motion to certify the class. The fact is that this undertaking was either too complex or too burdensome for most lawyers, which is why the hospital was able to violate the federal law for such a long time. Notr ithstanding this, it was also a huge undertaking for Plaintiffs' counsel, a solo and small-f,rrm lawyer who did not have large firms to rely upon for personal income, workflow coverage and other case-related assistance. THE WORKACTUALLY PERFORMED BY THE LA\ilYER 14. The undersigned manages a small law firm with 3 lawyers. Over the last three years, along with my co-counsel, I've filed or responded to approximately 75 contested pleadings, many long and complex in nature. Further, I've taken first-hand role in managing 40 indigent lead plaintiffs, managed the litigation, discovery, disclosure and reviewed thousands of pages of discovery and responses to FOIA requests, worked extensively with three expert witnesses and appeared before the Court many times. 15. As reflected in the time sheets, attached hereto as Exhibit One, I've documented 1,486.5 hours in the last three years working on this matter. Like my cocounsel, this represents more than one-quarter of my entire practice for three years. The work and hours set forth in these time sheets are true and correct and the tasks were necessary, reasonable, appropriate and related to the results ultimately obtained in this case THE RESULT 16. Our task was to put an end to an era of abuse by hospitals who-while claiming benefits of federally-funded programs, such as AHCCCS-were not following 5

17 the rules. In fact, these hospitals were hurting the very class of persons that the federal govemment was intending to help. 17. The results in this case are exemplary. If my legal career was to end tomorrow, this case, the risks it involved, and the results obtained for tens of thousands of indigent patients would be among my proudest achievements. REQUESTED AMOUNT 18. In light of the qualities of the advocate, the character of the work done, the work actually performed and the result, I request that the Court approve the reimbursement of attorney fee time expended by myself and my office personnel as set forth in the recapitulation, attached hereto as Exhibit One, which totals $712, The hourly rates of the attorneys, particularly the hourly rates for myself and Mr. Entrekin, and are supported by other declarations filed concurrentþ herewith. In addition to those declarations, as manager of several law offices, I am familiar with hourly rates in and around the State of Arizona. 20. The hourly rate of $425 per hour is customarily charged in this jurisdiction for attorneys with our level of experience, reputation, and ability. This hourly rate is further supported by, among other things, the diffrculty of the questions involved, quality of the legal work performed, the risk assumed by the lawyers, time limitations imposed and duration of the engagement which precluded accepting other employment. See e.g., Rule42,Ariz.R.Sup.Ct..,ER1.5(a);seealsolnreFallers, 181 Ari2.227,889P.2d20 (App. 1994) (holding a relatively inexperienced attorney was diligent in his representation and, therefore, entitled to fee that amounted to $1, per hour). 21. Likewise, the hourly rates of my office staff, paralegals Jane Hutchison 6

18 M.

19 LEVENBAUM TRACHTENBERG, PLC 362 North Third Avenue Phoenix, AZ l Page: 1 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/ North Third Avenue Account No: Phoenix AZ Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al PREBILLS Fees Hours 05/20/2011 GMT Develop class action concept per BB liens after AHCCCS; research same , /23/2011 GMT Continue case development , /27/2011 GMT Continue case development; research former and current clients , /28/2011 GMT Continue research , /30/2011 GMT Continue to develop class action concept for BB liens after AHCCCS; Research sam; Telephone call with Lance Entriken , /06/2011 GMT Telephone calls with LE and additional case development , /07/2011 GMT Telephone call with LE re: association; s with LE re: same , /08/2011 GMT Meeting with LE and research potential CRs; Attention to Notice of Claim issues; Attention to contract issues , /09/2011 GMT Research re: class representatives; s with LE; Review Az Medicaid Plan , /10/2011 GMT Research re: class representation; Research re: hospital defendants; with LE , /11/2011 GMT Research re: hospital defendants. Attention to corp. status , /13/2011 GMT Research re: class representative and calls to class representatives; with LE; Attention to former clients as CRs; Attention to researching claims , /14/2011 GMT Calls with various potential class Reps. Call with LE , /15/2011 GMT Research class reps - search archives , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

20 Page: 2 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 06/16/2011 GMT Research additional class reps and contact. Follow up re; retainer agreement , /17/2011 GMT Locate additional CRs ( Banner and Abrazo) , EDG Prepare file directory. prepare retainer agreement backer /19/2011 GMT s to LE. Research re; AHCCCS regs; research BB status , /20/2011 GMT Spoke to Barry Mitchell re; expert issues. s to Gary Urman re; expert issues. Call with David Botsko ( AHCCCS Inspector Gen-Ret) re; expert issues. s to LE. Research class reps , /21/2011 GMT Calls to class reps re; retainers and follow up. Research at AZ Legislature , /22/2011 GMT Research at Legislature re; ARS (additional) and research Arizona Admin code. Obtain additional CR names and former clients. research Federal Regs , /23/2011 GMT Research additional rep. Clients and BB issues; Attention to to state regs , EDG Update fee agreement backer GMT Telephone calls with multiple potential CRs; correspondence with LE , /24/2011 GMT Research accord and satisfaction issues- Memo , EDG Review PM for potential Plaintiffs contact info /25/2011 GMT Additional research re; class action and accord and satisfaction issue , EDG Continue to review PM for potential Plaintiffs contact info. requested contact info to Atty Trachtenberg. Update Fee agreement backer EDG from Atty. Trachtenberg re; obtaining contact info for Kats clients. Review PM for Kats potential Plaintiffs contact info. requested info to GMT /26/2011 GMT Accord and Satisfaction research re; Restatement and Corbin on contracts , /27/2011 EDG Update fee agreement backer EDG Finalize letter to AHCCCS re; FOIA request. Letter via certified mail and fax /28/2011 GMT Telephone calls with Lynn Gour and Carl P. re: CRs; Telephone calls to Mohamed Zainab. Christina Yerkey & Stephanie Luna re: serving as CRs , /29/2011 GMT Telephone calls with Moen, James Jolly, Mark Shea and Steven Young re: CR issues , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

21 Page: 3 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 06/30/2011 GMT Research re; 1983 action. Meeting with Botsko and meeting with Lance re; case strategy , /01/2011 GMT Call Logan Johnsten and AHCCCS. Additional 1983 research. to Lance Entrikin , /05/2011 GMT research re; class reps ; facts of accident, etc. Calls to Tracy James and Amber Winters re; rep status. research re; FOIA request and call to AHCCCS counsel , /06/2011 EDG Office Conference re; request from AHCCCS re; our request for docs EDG Letter via fax and mail to Atty. Herring AHCCCS with completed FOIA request from enclosed GMT Telephone calls with Lucas Smith, Nicholas Bigler, Natasha Toledo, Robert Pierson and John James re: CR service , /07/2011 GMT Telephone calls with Jackie Abbott, Amber Winters and Redmond Brown re: Class Action , /08/2011 EDG Multiple s re; FOIA request. to Atty. Entrekin with copy of 06/27/2011 FOIA requests to AHCCCS attached GMT Telephone calls with various CRs re: retainer agreements , GMT Research Federal Regulations and CFRs , /11/2011 GMT Telephone calls with Robert Van Steenburgh, Robert Begansky and Dalton Gormey re: Class Action , /12/2011 EDG Vm from and to Atty. Herring re; partial production re; FIOA request GMT Research and contact potential CRs , /13/2011 EDG to GMT re; fee agreement for Amber Winters EDG Review of various closed files to obtain lien reduction acceptance letters from hospitals. to Lance re; same EDG Update retainer agreement backer GMT Attention to CR status; Telephone calls with potential CRs and attorneys , /14/2011 EDG Vm from and to Telephone call from Atty Herring AHCCCS re; docs responsive to our FOIA request GMT Attention to class certification issues , /17/2011 EDG Downloaded and printed 2 AHCCCS contracts. to GMT re; same GMT Review PPAs and regulations , /18/2011 EDG VM from and Telephone call to Valerie Peterson (Melanie Herring- AHCCCS) re: remaining documents responsive to FOIA request GMT Attention to FOIA request.: Revise memo re: JD Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

22 Page: 4 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 07/19/2011 EDG Telephone call to Valerie Peterson AHCCCS re; picking up docs. Letter to Valerie P. enclosing check for docs responsive to FOIA requests GMT Attention to case status /20/2011 EDG Telephone call from Lance re: bar numbers /21/2011 EDG Vm from Kate Atty Entrekin and Telephone call to Atty. Entrekin re; obtaining copies received from AHCCCS EDG Prepare copies of contracts for Atty Entrekin. Letter to Atty Entrekin enclosing contracts EDG Extended Office Conference re; medical provider that is refusing to bill AHCCCS. Review of file re; same. Vm to Telephone call from Valerie Peterson(AHCCCS) to obtain copy of contract. request via fax only to Atty. Herring GMT Attention to expansion of defendants /22/2011 EDG Extended office Conference re; possible additional plaintiffs EDG Update fee agreement backer GMT Office conference with CRs to explain retainer agreement /26/2011 EDG Vm from Valerie Peterson re; FOIA requests GMT Attention to various potential defenses /27/2011 EDG Vm to and Telephone call from Valerie Peterson AHCCCS returning her voice mail re; FOIA requests GMT Attention to FOIA issues; research Fed register , /29/2011 GMT Research re: AHCCCS regs and potential experts; research legislative history at Capitol , /01/2011 GMT Calls with Lance and research re; AHCCCS and contract legality , EDG Office conference Re: David Botsko; prepare check request for retainer fee, Telephone call to Mr. Botsko EDG Receipt and review signed fee agreement from Mark Shea; Update Fee Agreement backer GMT Research and telephone call with David Botsko , GMT Attention to case development , /02/2011 GMT Review and revise complaint. with Lance. s with various class members. Telephone call with Botsko; Telephone call with Lance; Research re: Federal Regs , EDG Letter to David Botsko w/signed fee agreement and retainer check enclosed GMT Prepare pleadings and CR evaluations , /03/2011 GMT Continue revising complaint. Calls with class members. s with class members and mail letters to class members. Meeting with Botsko. Call with Lance re; additional claims , EDG Multiple s Re: filing suit EDG Proof and edit Complaint; office conference Re: same Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

23 Page: 5 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours EDG Prepare Exhibits EDG Letter and copy of Complaint to all Plaintiffs (16) for review and acceptance /04/2011 GMT Called each named plaintiff to confirm green light to file complaint and review allegations; Review state Medicaid plan. Call with Lance Entrikin; Research re: third party contract , /05/2011 GMT File complaint; Prepare re; service; Research re: defendents and corporate status , EDG Online research to obtain Statutory Agents (for service) for 7 defendants; office confrence Re: same. Prepare Summons for each defendant /06/2011 EDG Prepare index and folder for expert David Botsko, PhD EDG Organize Complaint and exhibits in preparation of serving upon all Defendants (7) EDG Review of file Re: Summons issued by Court /08/2011 EDG Office conference Re: issuing of Summons; Telephone call to Clerk's office Re: same EDG Prepare Complaint and Exhibits for Service upon Defendants (7) EDG Online research: District Court Website to obtain copies of Summons issued to Defendants (7) EDG Prepare instructions for 1st Legal for service of Summons & Complaint upon all Defendants (7) GMT Research re: AHCCCS class action , /09/2011 GMT Call with Cameron Artigue. Call with Lance Entrikin; note to file; Attention to to discovery , EDG Office conference with GMT Re: Attorney Artigue (G&B) Re: representing defendants. Conference call with Attorneys GMT & Artigue. Multiple Telephone call to Robert (1st Legal) Re:L service of process upon Defendants EDG Begin to organize pleadings /10/2011 GMT Draft discovery (initial), get forms for Rule 26(F). review Rule 26(F). Review Rule 26(F). Lance Entrikin. Obtain form re; meet and Conference , /11/2011 GMT Attention to initial disclosures and discovery , /12/2011 GMT Prepare 1st draft disclosure Stmt. Review Judge Boltons standard orders. Prepare 1st draft of proposed case mgt plan , /15/2011 GMT Review 1115 waiver and renewal , EDG Telephone call to Richard (1st Legal) re: status of service upon defendants; Office conference re: same. Multiple Telephone call from Robert (1st Legal service of process) re: status of Affidavits of Service aupon Flagstaff Medical and UMC Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

24 Page: 6 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 08/16/2011 EDG Prepare pleadings backer. Update file directory EDG Telephone call t o clerks office re; filling of Affidavits of service. Scan 5 Affidavits of service in Preparation of e-filling. E-file 5 Affidavits of service GMT Filed affidavits of service on various defendants /17/2011 GMT Conference with LE and attention to rule compliance , /19/2011 GMT s from Cameron Artigue re; stipulation. s with Lance E re; strategy /23/2011 EDG Prepare affidavit of service upon University Medical Center and Northern Arizona Center for filling /24/2011 GMT Research re: CRs and defendant hospitals , /29/2011 GMT Attention to case managment /30/2011 GMT Call with Lance. E re; additional TT's; Locate additional class reps for T & Carondelet. Revise complaint. Letter to potential plaintiffs , EDG Prepare letter to Mohamed Zainab re; lawsuit and enclosing fee agreement /31/2011 GMT Call to Z. Mohamed and P. Johenny. s to former attys re; details and update complaint , /01/2011 EDG Vm from and Telephone call to Robert Pierson re; status GMT Telephone call to R. Pierson re: CR issues /02/2011 GMT Call with Johanna P. Revise complaint. call Gabe fernandez Office to get additional details. to Patty re; retainer agreement. to Lance E. re; redline of FAC , /07/2011 GMT Calls to Mohamed Zainab and Patty. Letter to Mohamed. from C.T & B. to Lance E EDG Follow up letter to Ms. Mohamed Zainab enclosing Atty. Trachtenberg's 08/30/2011 letter fee agreement /12/2011 GMT Telephone call to Connor; Telephone call with Lance; Telephone call to M. Killie; Telephone call to Carl Picorretter; Telephone call to Bonny Bass; Telephone call to Richard Campuzano; Telephone call to Joanna Patty; Telephone call to Zainak Mohammed; Revise FAC; ed w/bonny re: Richard Camjuzano; Telephone call with Lisa Cassillas; Mail and prepare letter to Richard Compuziro. Review Stip to extend answer and G&B , /13/2011 GMT Filed FAC and correspondence with Cameron and Lance /15/2011 EDG Update retainer agreement backer GMT Case management , Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

25 Page: 7 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 09/20/2011 EDG Prepare and file summons to Carondelet issued EDG Downl;oaded and prepare 1st amended complaint and exhibits/ /21/2011 EDG Prepare amended complaint and summons for service upon Carondelet Health Network. Prepare intro to First Legal for Service upon Carondelet Health Network EDG Letter to Richard Campuzano enclosing copy of 1st Amened EDG Hours Complaint Letter to Zainab Mohamed enclosing copy of 1st Amended complaint EDG Update pleadings backer GMT Case management /22/2011 EDG Revise and/or prepare Interrogatories to all Defendants (10) /23/2011 EDG Revise and or prepare Request for Production to & def GMT Research re: state law and regs , /26/2011 EDG Revise and or prepare request for production to 3 Def EDG revise and pr prepare request for admission to all def(10) EDG Telephone call from Remond Brown re; status GMT Review and revise discovery requests /27/2011 GMT Telephone call with Redmond Brown /29/2011 EDG Online research re: status of service upon Carondelet Medical Center /03/2011 GMT Review Motion to Dismiss; Telephone call with Lance; to Cameron re: 26 (f) meeting; research legal issues , /04/2011 EDG Online research re status of service upon Carondelet Health Network. Telephone call to Richard (1st Legal) re same EDG Telephone call from Dalton Gormey, one of the Plaintiffs, re status EDG E-file Affidavit of Service: Carondelet Health Network EDG Update Pleadings backer GMT Research re: release agreement; Research re: accord and satisfaction. Research re: 12(b); Telephone call to Lance and s; Research re: state action , /06/2011 GMT Research state action - Lugour - conduct vs. unconstitutionality , /07/2011 GMT Research re: motion to dismiss , /10/2011 GMT Cameron. Finals to Lance E. Cal;l with David Don. review State Action Materials , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

26 Page: 8 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 10/17/2011 GMT Telephone call with Cameron re;26(f) meeting /19/2011 GMT Revise response to MTD. Call with Lance E , /20/2011 GMT Revise MTD response and research same , /21/2011 EDG Extended office conference re handling/procedures of upcoming discovery and disclosure GMT Revise response to MTD. Revise Initial 26 ( F) disclosure stmt. Revise proposed case management plan. Correspondence with Lance and Cameron re; mtn to dismiss and Rule 26 (F) Conference , /23/2011 EDG Prepare copies of Discovery (1st Set of Request for Admission, 1st Set Interrogatories, and 1st Set Request for Production) to all 10 Defendants /24/2011 EDG Telephone call from Robert Van Steenburgh, one of the plaintiffs, re status of class action lawsuit GMT Revise MTD. Call with Lance. concern re; JPSO; Telephone call to Van Steenburgh , /25/2011 GMT Revise discovery to D's; Research re: strategy , /26/2011 EDG Voice mail to and from Atty. Artigue re Rule 26 telephonic conference today. Telephone call to Atty. Entrekin re same. to Atty. Trachtenberg re same GMT Call with Cameron Artigue re; PCMP; Research same , /27/2011 EDG Prepare Notice of Service of Discovery form EDG Begin to prepare Notice of Service of Disclosure form GMT Finalize and file resp to MTD /28/2011 EDG Continue to prepare Notice of Service of Initial Disclosure EDG Revise and finalize 1st Set of Interrogatories, 1st Request for Production, and 1st Request for Admissions to all 10 Defendants. Prepare Notice of Service of Discovery: 1st Set of Interrogatories, 1st Request for Production, and 1st Request for Admissions for all 10 Defendants. Notices of Service of Discovery and discovery 1st Set of Interrogatories, 1st Request for Production, and 1st Request for Admissions to defense counsel. Hours Efile Notice of Service of Discovery: 1st Set of Interrogatories, 1st Request for Production, and 1st Request for Admissions for all 10 Defendants , /31/2011 EDG Prepare and mail copies of Discovery: 1st Set of Interrogatories, 1st Request for Production, and 1st Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

27 Page: 9 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours Request for Admissions for all 10 Defendants /02/2011 EDG Prepare Notice of Service of Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement. Revise Initial Disclosure Statement; office conference re same /03/2011 EDG Voice mail from and Telephone call to Robert Pierson re status of lawsuit. Informed him that Complaint has been filed, Defendants have Answered and Discovery is taking place EDG Continue to revise Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement GMT Attention to case management; Telephone call with Lance E; Attention to discovery issues , /04/2011 EDG Continue to revise Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement EDG to Judge Bolton enclosing Proposed Case Management Plan EDG Revise/Finalize/E-file Notice of Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosure. Finalize Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement. Prepare Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement. Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement and Exhibits & Notice Of Plaintiffs' Rule 26(a)(1)(A) Initial Disclosure to Attys. Antigue and Entrekin EDG to Judge Bolton enclosing Pltfs' Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss GMT File case mgmt plan; Attention to HIPAA issues , /10/2011 GMT various attorneys. Lance. E re: strategy; Attention to opt-out issues , /11/2011 GMT Case management and class action research , /15/2011 GMT Review reply. Travel to Fed CT. - research same re; Lizer , /16/2011 GMT Research re: Fed. Supp and federal court publication; Telephone calls to Thompson West , /17/2011 GMT Travel to and from court to review copy of Lizer file; research same w/westlaw as to publication motion , /20/2011 EDG Prepare Disclosure notebook /21/2011 EDG Prepare Discovery notebook EDG Begin detailed review of docket sheet re filed documents in preparation of updating Pleadings backer GMT Attention to Lizer publication issue /01/2011 EDG Telephone call from Christina Yerke re status. Informed her that we are now in discovery and it will be some time, perhaps up to a year GMT Telephone call with Yerke Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

28 Page: 10 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 12/02/2011 GMT Case management /08/2011 EDG Update Pleadings backer /09/2011 EDG Receipt and review forwarded re defendants' request for protective order; update File Directory with additional defense counsel information /10/2011 GMT Attention to discovery and disclosure; Case management , /13/2011 EDG Receipt and review Defendants' (10) Responses to Plaintiffs' Request for Admissions; update Discovery notebook /19/2011 GMT Study ECF Policy and Procedures re; manuel file under seal , /22/2011 EDG Update Pleadings backer GMT Begin review of N. Az. Healthcare discovery responses. Call with Lance E. re; same , /23/2011 GMT Review prelim discovery response data from UMC Corondelet, JCL and Scottsdale Healthcare , /27/2011 EDG Organize/prepare hard copies of Northern AZ Healthcare's & University Medical Center's AHCCCS lien spreadsheets prepared by defense counsel; update Discovery notebook /09/2012 GMT Hearing on MTD; Post hearing research re; subject matter JP , /10/2012 GMT Review and analyze discovery; s to/from G.Gnepper , /25/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s from Attys. Gnepper and Trachtenberg re updated discovery responses /30/2012 GMT Case strategy and associated research , /31/2012 GMT Attention to discovery analysis; spreadsheet re: same , /07/2012 EDG Multiple s re Voluntary Dismissal. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal to Judge Bolton; copies to Attys. Trachtenberg & Entrekin GMT Attention to voluntary dismissal and research re: fees /15/2012 EDG Revise update letter to class representatives EDG Office conference re letter to class action representatives GMT Attention to CR letters /16/2012 EDG Prepare/mail update letter to 18 class action representatives GMT Attention to CR letters Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

29 Page: 11 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 02/24/2012 EDG from and to GMT re status letter to Jackie Abbott. Scan/ letter to Jackie Abbott asking for updated address GMT Telephone call to Jackie Abbott /01/2012 GMT Attention to state court action and related research /12/2012 GMT Attention to Salbury and Phair issues re: Zickerman; multiple calls and letters re: CR and lien issues , /14/2012 GMT Attention to case development; Telephone calls with Tonya, Ben and Hester re: CR status /15/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Moen and Kristi re: lien /19/2012 GMT Correspondence with various attorneys re: case status and moving forward plans /20/2012 GMT Case management /22/2012 GMT Attention to retainer agreements /26/2012 GMT Attention to to case strategy /planning /27/2012 GMT Case management /02/2012 GMT Telephone calls with multiple CRs and potential CRs , /04/2012 GMT Attention to retainer agreement status , /05/2012 GMT Telephone calls/ s with LE re: strategy /10/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Francisco Gutierrez re: CRs; Telephone call with Amanda Gates; Telephone call with James Lyons /11/2012 EDG Prepare form letter to clients re CFA for state court. Prepare CFA's for clients EDG Telephone call from Robert Pierson re status GMT Telephone call with Peter Gorski re: CR; Telephone calls with Claudia Arciniega, Kristi Salsbury and Gibb Zickerman re: CR issues , /12/2012 GMT Telephone call with Joanne Schable re: serving as CR /13/2012 EDG Continue to prepare/mail or letters and new retainer agreements for all plaintiffs GMT Telephone call with Craig Simon re: potential CR /16/2012 EDG VM left for Remond Brown (message from Scott that client had questions) GMT Telephone call with Redmond Brown Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

30 Page: 12 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 04/17/2012 EDG Telephone call from Remond Brown re /new fee agreement GMT Lunch with Burnham. Attention to retainer agreements. s to EDG and Lance. E /18/2012 GMT Correspondence with Lance. Correspondence with Burnham. Attention to to retainer agreements /19/2012 GMT Telephone call with Greg Lyon re: CRs; Telephone call with Erick Shapiro re: CRs; Telephone calls with E. Maldonado, Fernando Young (family), Lynda Walker, Mike Bennett and Annette Pye , GMT Telephone call with Erick Shapiro re: CRs; Telephone calls with E. Maldonado, Fernando Young (family), Lynda Walker, Mike Bennett and Annette Pye , /20/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Tonya Ben, Melissa Turk & Chris Keenen , /23/2012 GMT Attention to retainer agreements /24/2012 GMT Attention to adding Moen to lawsuit; Telephone calls with Boan /25/2012 GMT Telephone call with Sarah Showard re: CRs; Telephone calls with Tina Corbett and Sofia Cruz /03/2012 GMT Meeting with LE regarding filing, CRs, strategy and management , /04/2012 EDG s (10) sent to Lead Plaintiffs who have not returned signed State Retainers EDG Telephone call to Tracy James. She moved and cannot locate the letter. New Address: W. Scotts Drive, El Mirage, AZ Told her will mail out today EDG 04/13/2012 letter and State Retainer to Tracy James EDG Begin to prepare updated Lead Plaintiff Retainer Index GMT Telephone calls to various CRs; Attention to retainers , /07/2012 EDG Revise Complaint. Prepare check request for filing fees. Prepare exhibits for Complaint. Prepare/revise Certificate of Arbitration. Prepare Civil Cover Sheet. Prepare Summons (10), including confirming corporate names/stat agents , GMT Call with Lance re; complaint. Revise complaint. Attention to retainer agreement. Attention to filling complaint , /08/2012 EDG Revise/finalize Civil Cover Sheet, revise/finalize Summonses (10), revise/finalize Complaint, finalize Certificate of Arbitration EDG Prepare Civil Cover Sheet, Complaint, Certificate re Arbitration, and Summonses (10) for filing/issuing; Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

31 Page: 13 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 1st Legal re instructions for filing/issuing of same EDG Telephone call to Paula (Atty. Burnham's asst) asking if Atty. Burnham would accept service for all defendants EDG Revise File Directory GMT Revised complaint filed and call with Lance E /09/2012 EDG Telephone call from Paul (Atty. Burnham). They will accept service for all defendants. to Atty. Trachtenberg re same EDG Prepare Notice/Waiver of Service of Summons for all Defendants EDG Scan/ Complaint w/ exhibits to Atty. Artigue; copy to Atty. Trachtenberg EDG Prepare Pleadings backer EDG Online research re case number/assigned Judge; to GMT re same. Revise/finalize Notice/Waiver of Service of Summons for all Defendants. Update File Directory EDG Online research re Motion/Certification required to designate case for Complex litigation; Telephone call from Atty. Entrekin re same GMT Attention to filing issues /10/2012 EDG Revise/Finalize/E-file Certification of Complexity & Plts' Mtn for Designation as Complex Case EDG Revise/Finalize Notice/Waiver of Service of Summons GMT Telephone call with LE re: Gorski case and research /11/2012 EDG Revise Notice/Waiver of Service. Prepare Complaint, Certificate of Arbitration, Certification of Complexity & Pltfs' Mtn for Designation as Complex Case Pursuant to Rule 8(I), ARCP in preparation of serving Atty. Burnham EDG (for all defendants) Office conference re amending complaint. Prepare 1st Amended Complaint; e-file same GMT s with Dick Burnham. Telephone call with Lance E; amend complaint , /14/2012 EDG Revise Notice/Waiver in preparation of serving Defendants. Online research re filing of Amd Complaint GMT Case management , /15/2012 EDG Revise/finalize Notice/Waiver. Prepare 1st Amd Complaint for service. Notice of Lawsuit/Waiver of Service, Complaint, Cert re Arb, Certification of Complexity, Mtn for Designation as Complex Case, 1st Amd Complaint to Atty. Burnham /16/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Randy Hinsch and John O'Steen re CRs; Telephone calls with Angie Espinoz, Michelle Boan, Sean Moen and Allen Bullis , /17/2012 GMT Call with Lance re; balance billing in other jurisdictions. Being researched Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

32 Page: 14 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 05/18/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Mark Shea, James Jolly and Christine Arrona , /21/2012 EDG VM from and Telephone call to Atty. Entrekin re discovery responses from defendants. Scan/ defendants' responses to discovery in Fed Court action. Attachments not necessary. If all responses appear to be the same, only 1 set of responses is enough EDG Review Discovery notebook re various discovery responses. Scan/ selected discovery responses to Atty. Entrekin EDG to Atty. Entrekin re receipt of Waiver of Service of Summons GMT Telephone calls with Pam Smith, Walter Ansley and Marquis Wells , /22/2012 EDG Prepare instructions for filing Waiver of Service of Summons. Update Pleadings backer GMT Telephone calls with Eric Post, Jeff Hernandex and Frances Lynch re: potential CRs , /24/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Estella Maldenado and Amy Yi /25/2012 EDG Update Pleading backer GMT Telephone calls with Mike Scotino, Lynda Walker, Annaliza Armendez, Maria Castro and Tina Corbett , /01/2012 EDG Receipt and review ME: Case Reassignment/Complex Designation; office conference re same EDG Prepare check request for Complex Case Fee GMT Attention to case strategy; Telephone call with LE re: experts /04/2012 EDG Prepare instructions for filing Complex Fee check /05/2012 EDG Update Pleadings backer & File Directory /12/2012 EDG from Atty. Trachtenberg re additional payment for complex case fee. Review of file re same. to Atty. Trachtenberg re same GMT Attention to filing issues /13/2012 GMT Case management; Conference w/le /18/2012 EDG Telephone call from Robert Pierson to update his tel #: Everything else remains the same (address/ address) /20/2012 GMT Attention to expert issues and HHS deposition /28/2012 EDG Telephone call from GMT re preparation of discovery requests GMT Attention to discovery; Correspond with LE re: Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

33 Page: 15 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 07/01/2012 EDG Revise RFA, RFP and Non-UNIs for six Defendants w/ regard to firm name/change of court information/caption change re two defendants /02/2012 EDG Revise RFA, RFP and Non-UNIs for four (4) Defendants w/ regard to firm name/change of court information/caption change re two defendants. Prepare Notice of Change of Firm name GMT Review discovery requests/revise GMT Attention to scheduling conference /09/2012 EDG Organize state fee agreements; revise/update State Fee Agreement backer EDG Nicholas Bigler: VM left re fee agreement. John James: Telephone call to client re fee agreement, letter to client enclosing fee agreement for signature and return GMT Attention to retainer agreement issues /10/2012 EDG Prepare/e-file Notice of Firm Name Change. Copy to Co-Counsel and Defense counsel. Update Pleadings backer EDG VM to and Telephone call from Lucas Smith re status of fee agreement; scan/ letter & fee agreement to Lucas EDG Attempted Telephone call to Sainab Mohamed. Informed that ther phone number is not good. Resent 04/13/2012 letter and fee agreement EDG Scan/ 04/13/12 letter & fee agreement to: Stephanie Krueger and Steve Young GMT Attention to various retainer agreement issues and telephone calls to CRs /12/2012 EDG from Stephanie Krueger w/ signed fee agreement attached; download/save same. Update Fee Agreement backer. to Nicholas Bigler w/ 04/13/12 letter and fee agreement attached GMT Case management /13/2012 EDG Lucas Smith: F/U to wife (Noelle) confirming receipt of new fee agreement. Remond Brown: scan/ 04/13/2012 letter and new fee agreement EDG VM from and Telephone call to Zainab Mohamed re fee agreement GMT Telephone calls with various CRs /16/2012 GMT Attention to and review motion to dismiss; research same , /17/2012 GMT Research re: motion to dismiss , /23/2012 EDG Receipt and review fee agreements from: Lucas Smith and Zainab Mohammed. from and to Remond Brown re signing of fee agreement EDG Office conference w/ GMT re status of signed fee agreements GMT Attention to retainer agreements; Telephone call with LE Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

34 Page: 16 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours re: response /24/2012 GMT Review Motion. review and revise response brief. Research same. Telephone call with Lance E , /25/2012 GMT Revise Response Brief and additional research. Telephone call with Lance , /26/2012 GMT Research re: motion and jurisdiction; Telephone call with LE , /27/2012 GMT Attention to response brief /30/2012 EDG Prepare Plts Response in Opposition to Mtn to Dismiss & Exhibits for filing. Prepare sub folder for expert, Thomas Barker, including saving Affidavit GMT Telephone call with Lance re; response and attention to response to motion to dismiss; Revise responses and append , /31/2012 EDG Update File Directory and sub-file w/ Thomas Barker contact info EDG Prepare exhibits for Appendix EDG E-file Response to Mtn to Dismiss EDG Prepare instructions for 1st Legal to deliver appendix to Judge Gama and Response & Appendix to defense counsel GMT File response to motion; Revise discovery , /01/2012 EDG Office conference w/ GMT re discovery. (07/31/2012) EDG Update Pleadings backer. Prepare backer for Appendix re Pltfs' Resp to Mtn 2 Dismiss EDG Diary various pretrial deadlines EDG Revise all discovery requests EDG Office conference re revions to discovery requests GMT Attention to discovery /02/2012 EDG Additional revisions to Non-UNIs and RFP EDG Finalize/mail discovery requests to Atty. Artigue EDG Scan/ discovery requests sent to defense counsel to Atty. Entrekin, co-counsel EDG Online research re ME/date Initial Defense Pleadings filed, calendar due date for Initial Disclosure EDG Begin to prepare Discovery backer GMT Revise discovery /03/2012 EDG Continue to prepare Discovery backer. Update Pleadings backer GMT Case management /06/2012 EDG Receipt and review from GMT to Jackie Abbott re status GMT Called and Client Jackie Abbott; Attention to to Stip re: reply Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

35 Page: 17 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 08/13/2012 EDG Begin to draft Initial Disclosure Statement GMT Attention to disclosure statement /14/2012 EDG Continue to draft Initial Disclosure Statement GMT Attention to disclosure and discovery /19/2012 EDG Continue to draft Initial Disclosure Statement EDG Prepare exhibits for Initial Disclosure Statement /20/2012 GMT Review reply brief Conference with Lance E; follow-up research , /21/2012 GMT Attention to and revise PTO; begin to draft discovery /03/2012 GMT Review excel spreadsheet produced by G&B; begin indep analysis /04/2012 GMT Review written discovery response and call to Lance E /06/2012 GMT Attention to lien issues re; State vs Wang and impact on class action. Call with Lance re; same , /07/2012 GMT Attention to case strategy and case management /10/2012 EDG Update Pleadings backer GMT Telephone call with Greg Lyon re: additional CRs /13/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s (11) w/ defendants' discovery answers attached EDG Office conferencew/ Atty. Trachtenberg re saving attached spreadsheet information in computer/hard file GMT Attention to discovery analysis , /17/2012 EDG Update Discovery backer (re all 10 defendants Resp to RTA and Non-UNIs) /19/2012 GMT Research re: experts; correspond with LE /20/2012 GMT Attention to expert issues /21/2012 EDG Finalize/e-file Notice of Change of Firm Name. Copy to defense counsel. Code bill for e-filing /25/2012 EDG Check to Thomas Barker/Foley Hoag for 08/08/2012 invoice /28/2012 EDG Receipt and review Multiple s re today's decision granting defendants Mtn to Dismiss 15 of 18 Pltfs /01/2012 GMT Call with Lance and attn to strategy /10/2012 EDG Telephone call from Robert Pierson re status. Informed him that case is still in litigation and will be for some time. There are hearings coming up and we may know more then Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

36 Page: 18 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours GMT Telephone call with Rob Piersen re: status /11/2012 GMT Case management /12/2012 GMT Attention to case posture and strategy; review motion to dismiss /22/2012 GMT Revise motion. Review answers. Call with Lance re; strategy /23/2012 GMT Attention to certification issues , /24/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Offer of Judgment from defendant and certifying case as a class action GMT Attention to OJ's and research the same. Attention to Douglas case , /25/2012 EDG Prepare/ Fee Agreement to Natasha Toledo GMT Attention to new plaintiffs. Calls with existing plaintiffs. Attention to amending complaints. Call with new plaintiffs re: CR issues , /26/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re additional HIPAA releases/deadline to respond to Mtn to Dismiss EDG Review of file re filing/receipt dates of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. to Atty. Trachtenberg re Response due date to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss various hospitals EDG Prepare Fee Agreement for Angie Espinoza; to and from Atty. Trachtenberg re appropriate wording for Plaintiff. to Angie Espinoza w/ Fee Agreement attached for signature and return EDG VM from Angie Espinoza re Fee Agreement. She cannot download/print. Fax Fee Agreement to Angie EDG Telephone call to Natsha Toledo. She is in the hospital w/ her daughter. She will try to sign it and get it back to me this weekend. If not she will come in on Monday to sign the fee agreement EDG Draft Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and proposed Order re same EDG Prepare/revise Fee Agreement for Penny Summerlin; Fee Agreement to Penny Summerlin. from and to Penny Summerlin w/ corrected Fee Agreement attached EDG Prepare Fee Agreement for Lora Newton; Fee Agreement to Lora Newton EDG Multiple attempts to Lora Newton--all come back undeliverable. Attempted Telephone call to Lora-no answer. Office conference w/ Atty. Trachtenberg re same GMT Calls to new plaintiffs. Correspondence with various attys to obtain new plaintiffs. Correspondence with Lance re; new plaintiffs. Revise Complaint. Research re; KRMC. Call with Mark Shea. Call with Summerlin. Call with Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

37 Page: 19 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours Newton. Call with Hester. Call with Jolly. Attention to James Issues; Telephone calls with Lance , /27/2012 GMT Calls with various plaintiffs; revise amended complaint , /28/2012 GMT Revise SAC and research re; same , /29/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re additional Plaintiffs. Revise/ Stipulation to Extend Deadline for Plaintiffs to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss GMT Telephone call with Lance. Calls with various plaintiffs for potential plaintiffs; revise complaint. Calls to various attys re; new plaintiffs , /30/2012 GMT Calls with various new and potential plaintiffs. Call with Lance re; strategy; draft form of Judgement for Mark Shea. Amend complaint. Follow up with other clients to get retainer agreements signed and returned , /31/2012 GMT Attention to adding MMC and strategy. Calls with various counsel re; potential new clients. Amend complaint. Draft retainer agreement. Follow up on retainer agreements yet to be returned , /01/2012 EDG Review mulitple s re new potential plaintiffs and begin to prepare updated Plaintiff list/signed fee agreements GMT Numerous calls and correspondence with Tucson Counsel re; new plaintiffs; Attention to case strategy , /02/2012 GMT Revise complaint. Calls with various attys re; plaintiffs. Prepare Judgement and Correspondence to G&B , /03/2012 GMT Calls with various plaintiffs. Research re; class action issues. Revise SAC , /04/2012 GMT Calls with new plaintiffs and revise documents. Prepare retainer agreements. various attys. Confirm filling of liens for all new plaintiffs; Attention to FOIA issues , /05/2012 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re new potential plaintiffs. Continue prepare updated Pltf list/signed fee agreements GMT Continue to call and Correspond with new plaintiffs., Correspondence with various attys for new potential plaintiffs. Correspondence with Lance re: strategy. Correspondence with Opposing Counsel , /06/2012 EDG Receipt and review faxed signed Fee Agreement, scan to Atty. Trachtenberg EDG Receipt and review s re potential plaintiffs/download initial fee agreements/continue to Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

38 Page: 20 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al GMT Hours update new potential plaintiff list Draft respond to motion to dismiss. Review motion to deny certification. Calls with Lance re; tasks and strategy. Calls to potential new plaintiffs; meeting with staff re; tasks and filling , /07/2012 GMT Revise Motion for L to amend. Revise resp to motion to dismiss. Meeting with new potential plaintiffs. call with Lance , EDG VM left for Annette Pye re mailing address to send Retainer agreement EDG VM left for Michael Bennett re mailing address to send Retainer Agreement EDG Telephone call to Rachel Leos (Atty. Tammy Carter) to obtain addresses for: Yvette Lopez, Maria De La Luz Nieves Castro, Michael Bennett and Annette Pye. Rachel also informed me that they have the signed Agreement for Amy Yi. She was scan and the agreement to me along with the addresses for the others and put the original in the mail EDG VM from and to Mike Scotino w/ Fee Agreement attached EDG Conf call w/ Atty. Trachtenberg & Annaliza Armendariz. Letter to Annaliza Armendariz w/ Retainer enclosed for signature and return EDG to Christine Arrona w/ Retainer Agreement attached EDG to Chelsea McGarry w/ Retainer Agreement attached EDG Telephone call to Tonya Ben to obtain mailing address: POB 884, Chinle, AZ to mail Retainer Agreement for her and Jaymi Clark EDG to Atty. Trachtenberg re Tonya Ben and Jaymi Clark or Tyra Clark GMT Attention to various case management issues , /08/2012 GMT Attention to case management , /09/2012 EDG Telephone call w/ Sabrina Wells on behalf of her son, Marquiis Wells re Retainer Agreement EDG Prepare Retainer Agreement for Marquiis Wells. to Sabrina Wells (mother) w/ Retainer Agreement attached for signature and return GMT Review objection to judgement. Research OJ's and Prepare response to objection; Telephone call with Wells and Ben , /12/2012 GMT Attention to various retainer agreement issues; Telephone call to Lopez /13/2012 EDG Yvette Lopez: Prepare Retainer Agreement. Letter to Yvette w/ Retainer Agreement enclosed for signature and return /15/2012 EDG Review of file re receipt of pending outstanding Retainer Agreements from new Plaintiffs GMT Review of reply re: motion to deny cert & research Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

39 Page: 21 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 11/16/2012 EDG Update/revise New potential clients. Letters to: Annette Pye, Michael Bennett, Maria Castro, Kristi Salsbury w/ Retainer Agreements enclosed for signature and return. to James Lyons w/ Retainer Agreement enclosed for signature and return. to Atty. Showard re status of Linda Corbette-Summeran, Tina Corbett, Alicia Corbett and Mia Cruz by Sofia Cruz retainer agreements GMT Review reply to Objection; draft motion to strike reply. review reply to motion to deny certification. Review reply to motion to dismiss. Review response to motion for leave to amend. Revise reply re; motion for leave to amend , /19/2012 GMT Attention to drafting various pleadings , /20/2012 GMT Attention to to case strategy/research and client management , /21/2012 GMT Revise motions/pleadings /26/2012 EDG Receipt and review Faxed Retainer Agreement from James Lyons. from and to James re same /28/2012 EDG Receipt and review signed retainer agreement from Charles Mike Scotino. Scanned/saved same to file. to Atty. Trachtenberg re same EDG Revise/update New potential clients list/multiple office conferences re retainer agreements/ s to: Christopher Keenan, Walter Ansley, Stacy Shultis GMT Case management issues /29/2012 EDG Continue to revise/update New Potential Clients index. Reorganize backer to reflect changes/updates in New Potential Clients index. Letter to Tonya Ben w/ Retainer Agreement enclosed for signature and return /03/2012 EDG Telephone call to Chelsea McGarry re status of signed Retainer Agreement; office conference w/ GMT re same. Telephone call to Christine Arrona re status of signed Retainer Agreement-prepare and Retainer to Christine. VM left for Michael Bennett re status of signed Retainer Agreement. VM left for Annett Pye re status of signed Retainer Agreement. Telephone call to Kristi Salsbury re status of signed Retainer Agreement GMT Case management and telephone calls with various CRs /04/2012 EDG from and to Atty. Trachtenberg re status of remaining Retainer Agreements EDG from and to Diann re status of Retainer Agreements for Keenan, Ansley & Shultis GMT Attention to case management /05/2012 EDG Office conference w/gmt re Christopher Keenan Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

40 Page: 22 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours GMT Meeting re: Keenan /06/2012 EDG Office conference w/gmt re Christopher Keenan Retainer. Update backer. Multiple office conferences re remaining Plaintiffs that have not returned Retainer Agreements EDG FOIA request (via fax & mail) to Melanie Harris (AHCCCS) for Kingman Hospital, Inc. provider agreement or contacts with AHCCCS GMT Review court order. revise Amended complaint to confirm with new clients; Attention to case management; FOIA requests , /07/2012 EDG Prepare Summons: Kingman Hospital, Inc GMT Revise and finalize motion to certify class , /10/2012 EDG Multiple s re handling of remaining unsigned Retainer Agreement/s; staffing w/ Lisa re same EDG Update Retainer Agreement backer GMT Attention to Kingman issues and case management /11/2012 EDG VM left for Valerie Peterson (602) ; Melanie Herring's Asst) re status of FOIA request faxed to Atty. Herring on 12/06/2012 re provider agreeements/contacts between AHCCCS and State of AZ & Kingman Hospital, Inc GMT Attention to affidavit from Vogt /12/2012 GMT Attention to FOIA issues and legislative issues /13/2012 EDG Receipt and review fax from Valerie Peterson (Atty. Herring-AHCCCS) containing contract/provider agreement EDG with Kingman Hospital, Inc to Atty. Trachtenberg w/ contract/provider agreement between AHCCCS and Kingman Hosptial, Inc. attached EDG Update File Directory GMT Research Vogt issues and expert issues /14/2012 GMT Telephone call with Tina re: Vogt /17/2012 EDG Prepare Summons: Kingman Hospital, Inc for issuing. Prepare instructions to 1st Legal for issuing Summons: Kingman Hospital, Inc GMT Attention to expert issues and case management /18/2012 GMT Telephone calls with Vogt re: sworn statement; draft /19/2012 GMT Research re: class certification /20/2012 EDG Update Plaintiffs' Retainer backer GMT Attention to Vogt statement /21/2012 EDG Receipt and review Stipulation to Extend Defendants' Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify until 01/07/2013. Update Pleadings backer Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

41 Page: 23 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours EDG Receipt and review Affidavit of Janson Theodore "Ted" Vogt. Prepare sub-folder re same GMT Review Vogt statement /27/2012 GMT Telephone call with Tina re: Vogt; Attention to certification /28/2012 EDG Telephone call from MHR Assoc re Affidavit of Service upon Kingman Hospital /01/2013 GMT Attention to to Motion to certify. Calls with Lance. Calls with Tyler Taber and Elliot Glicksmen and Mike Wiste. to Hering. Research re; Newberg on Class Action , /03/2013 EDG Office conference re deadline for Pltfs initial expert disclosure; to Atty. Entrekin re same EDG from Atty. Entrekin re Plaintiffs' initial expert disclosure GMT Attention to case management /04/2013 GMT Attention to expert issues and research re: HHs , /07/2013 EDG Office conference w/gmt to confirm last contact for Arrona, Ansley, Bennett & Pye EDG Office conference w/gmt re contacting Walter Ansley; VM left for Michael Bennett; attempted Telephone call to Annette Pye (spoke to older female who asked me to call back in 20 min) GMT Attention to case management /08/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Pltfs' Expert Disclosures; office conference w/gmt re same GMT Attention to case management and expert disclosures /10/2013 EDG Review of Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class GMT Attention to hospital response to certification , /11/2013 GMT Call with James J. s with Hering. s with Lance and calls with various plaintiffs attorneys re; sworn statements , /14/2013 GMT Review and revise declarations. Calls with Lance re; declarations. Calls to Eric Dowell re; Kingman and meeting. Contact various plaintiffs attorneys re; declarations. Obtained 16 signatures , /15/2013 GMT Meeting with various attys rel sworn statements. Meeting with Az AJ re sworn statement. Collected 30 sworn statements from various attorney re; class certification , /16/2013 GMT Contact various attorneys re; sworn declarations. Call with Jon O'Steen re; Fernando Young. Obtain signature on Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

42 Page: 24 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 30 declarations. Deal with Mia Cruz issue re; setlement.; Correspondence with opposing Counsel , /17/2013 GMT Calls with various attys re; declarations. Collected 20 Sworn Statements , /18/2013 GMT Review and revise reply brief re: Motion to Certify , /21/2013 GMT Calls with Attys rel declarations. Revise reply re; motion to certify , /22/2013 GMT Calls with various attys re; sworn statment. Attention to 26.1 disclosure deadline /23/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Initial Disclosure Statements EDG Begin to revise/update Initial Disclosure Statement GMT Attention to 26.1 disclosure issue /24/2013 EDG Continue to revise/update Initial Disclosure Statement, including office conference w/ GMT & s to and from Atty. Entrekin , GMT Attention to case management; meeting with Lance and Eric D; follow-up correspondence , /25/2013 EDG to Atty. Entrekin w/ copy of draft 1st Supp Disclosure Statement attached EDG Telephone call from Atty. Entrekin re lien releases by Gammage & Burnham/hospitals and to confirm date of service upon Kingman Regional (12/28/2012) EDG to Atty. Entrekin w/ copy of Affidavit of Service upon Kingman Regional EDG Online research re ME: re discovery/potential deadlines EDG Begin to prepare Non-Uniform Interrogatory to all defendants (11) re billing AHCCCS and accepting payment from AHCCCS GMT Attention to discovery and disclosure issues; standing issue/research , /28/2013 EDG Continue to prepare Non-Uniform Interrogatory to all defendants (11) re billing AHCCCS and accepting payment from AHCCCS EDG Receipt and review multiple s re KRMC/Disclosure Statements GMT Revise certification reply brief and collect additional declarations from plaintiffs attys ( now totaling 130+). Research re; class certification , /29/2013 EDG to Attys. Trachtenberg and Entrekin re Motion to Set and Jt. Pretrial Statement deadlines EDG Office conference re Motion to Set/Jt. Pretrial Statement deadlines EDG Online research re possible Minute Entries re pretrial deadlines. (07/31/2012 ME filed 08/01/2012) Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

43 Page: 25 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al EDG GMT Hours from Lance re handling of Motion to Set/Jt Pretrial Statement deadlines. Draft Notice re Motion to Set/Dismissal from Inactive Calendar deadlines; draft to Lance for review and comment File reply brief. Attention to to KRMC issues. Correspondence with KRMC Counsel. Contact G&O attys and staff re; KRMC issues and AHCCCS. Contact Scott Wickland re; lien matters and KRMC. Prepare declaration for Scott. Correspondence with Hering re; JPT memo and trail setting. Correspondence with Lance re; various issues. Read motion re; Rule 54 b certification , /30/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re disclosure; download various exhibits and revised 1st Supplemental Disclosure. Prepare exhibits for 1st Supplemental Disclosure. Begin online research to obtain applicable liens and lien releases for all plaintiffs. Receipt and review multiple s re CPC and Motion to Set , GMT Research re; Rule 54 b certification. Call with Lance re; same. Attention to court deadlines. Motion re; JPT memo. Attention to AHCCCS re: issues , /31/2013 EDG Finalize 2nd Set Non-Uniform Interrogatory requests to all defendants except Oro Valley and Kingman Hospital EDG Finalize Notice re Motion to Set and Dismissal from Inactive Calendar deadlines EDG Continue online research to obtain applicable liens and lien releases for all plaintiffs GMT Attention to discovery requests/revise and execute /01/2013 EDG Continue online research to obtain applicable liens and lien releases for all plaintiffs , EDG Revise 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statment re exhibits. Prepare Atty. Ullman's depo for disclosure GMT Attention to Motion. Call with Wicklend: Correspondence with various counsel. Call with Lance re: standing and 54b, , /02/2013 EDG Review 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement re exhibits/revisions in preparation of discussion with attorneys /04/2013 EDG to Atty. Entrekin & Trachtenberg re 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement documents disclosed section EDG Additional s from & to Attys. Entrekin and Trachtenberg re 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement documents disclosed section EDG Office conference w/ Atty. Trachtenberg re 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement documents disclosed section; revise disclosure statement EDG Continue to prepare recorded lien information GMT Research and review Rule 54 b motion; case management; correspondence with opposing Counsel , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

44 Page: 26 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 02/05/2013 EDG Continue to prepare recorded lien information & prepare for disclosure , EDG Online research re fees for obtaining copies of liens from Pima and Mohave Counties' Recorders' offices which are not available online GMT Revise response re: opposition to Rule 54b judgement /06/2013 EDG Continue to revise 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement. to Mohave County Recorder's office to obtain copies of liens for: Penny Summerlin, Lora Newton, Matthew Mendez, and Renee Bermudez. Telephone call to Pima County Recorder's Office to verify prepayment and postage charges; prepare check request for same. Letter to Pima County Recorder's office to obtain copies of liens for: Nicholas Bigler, Robert Pierson, Christina Yerkey (3 liens), Stephanie Luna (2 liens), Richard Campuzano (2 liens), Zainab Mohamed, Kristi Salsbury, Brianna Phair, Leticia Clemens, Claudia Arciniega, Linda Corbette Simmerman, Tina Corbette, Alicia Corbette, Mia Cruz ( 3 liens), Annaliza Armendariz, Aurora Kayhart, Amy Yi (2 liens), Maria Nieves, Michael Bennett, and Annette Pye. Multiple office conferences with Atty. Trachtenberg re revisions/finalizing 1st Supp Disc Stmt , EDG 1st Supplemental Disclosure Statement to defense counsel GMT Attention to discovery/disclosure /07/2013 EDG Scan and Atty. Entrekin final Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Disclosure Statement & enclosures EDG from Mohave County Recorder's Office re prepayment for copies of liens. Prepare check request for same. Complete Order Form /08/2013 EDG Letter to Mohave County Recorder's office w/ completed order form and prepayment check enclosed GMT Attention to case management /09/2013 GMT Review response to motion re: standing /11/2013 EDG Begin to prepare Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS re various document requests GMT Attention to related legislative issues and case impact , /12/2013 EDG Update File Directory EDG Continue to prepare Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS including Attachment A and spreadsheets (organized by Hospitals and Plaintiffs) GMT Attention to motion strategy and case development with LE , /13/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re possible settlement of Kristi Salsbury and Brianna Phair's liens w/ TMC EDG Continue to update lien spreadsheets in preparation of AHCCCS Subpoena Duces Tecum Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

45 Page: 27 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours GMT Attention to case management and Zickerman client issues /14/2013 EDG VM left for Priscilla (Atty. Greg Lyon; ) re Melissa Cobos asking for a return call EDG Prepare check request for Subpoena Duces Tecum-AHCCCS EDG Office conference re additional liens found out online and whether to include them in the list EDG Revise cover letter for Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS EDG Continue to revise Attachment A for Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS. Revise Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS. Office conference re same GMT Attention to case management and strategy /15/2013 EDG Office conference re missing information re difficulites in obtaining lien information from Phillips & Lyon ( ) for Melissa Cobos EDG to and from Atty. Trachtenberg re filing of Reply to our Motion re Standing of Lead Plaintiffs EDG Telephone call to Brian Smith (Phillips & Lyon, ) re Melissa Cobos EDG Revise/update Attachment A with clarification of dates of service EDG Prepare Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS for issuing; to 1st Legal w/ instructions for issuing same GMT Attention to client issues and case management /19/2013 EDG Prepare check request for subpoena witness fee (AHCCCS) GMT Review reply re: 54b judgement /21/2013 EDG Prepare Subpoena Duces Tecum to AHCCCS and supporting documents for service. to First Legal re instructions re same. Copies of same documents to defense counsel for all hospitals except Kingman, copies of same documents (via ) to Atty. Entrekin EDG Office conference regarding mailing copies of Subpoena Duces Tecum to defense counsel for Kingman Hospital GMT Attention to case management /22/2013 EDG Receipt and review Atty. Herring (AHCCCS) re response to SDT; to Atty. Trachtenberg re same EDG Receipt and review multiple s re handling of SDT to AHCCCS EDG to Atty. Hering (Attorney for defendant hospitals) w/ copy of SDT to AHCCCS attached EDG Letter to Atty. Herring (AHCCCS) via fax and mail re Subpoena Duces Tecum and obtaining a court order GMT Attention to Subpoena for AHCCCS info /25/2013 GMT Attention to motion re; AHCCCS info/subpoena; conference with LE re: experts , /27/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Judge Gama's Ruling re Rule 54(b) judgment in the Close Lien plaintiffs side. Review of file re experts' Affidavits. to Atty. Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

46 Page: 28 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al EDG GMT Hours Abney attaching 3 experts' Affidavits Telephone call from Michaela Johnson re Melissa Cobos' hospital lien Attention to Rule 54b issue. Call with Lance E. Call with David Abney. Pull file documents for Abney. Correspondence with Abney. Correspondence with Dana , /01/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re various issues /05/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Kingman Hospital filing of Mtn to Dismiss EDG Revise 1st Set of Non Uniform Interrogatories to Kingman Hospital. Original & copy to defense counsel for Kingman Hospital, copy to defense counsel for other defendant hospitals, same to Atty. Entrekin GMT Attention to case management; correspondence with counsel and CRs /06/2013 EDG Telephone call to Brandii (Christopher Keenan's girlfriend). Diann asked that I give her a call EDG Office conference w/gmt re disbursement procedures GMT Attention to case management and motion to dismiss; Attention to AHCCCS issues , /07/2013 EDG Telephone call from Valerie Peterson (AHCCCS) re SDT for Plaintiffs' info /08/2013 GMT Research re: standing and motion to dismiss issues , /11/2013 GMT Review and revise response to KRMC Motion to Dismiss , /18/2013 GMT Research and revise response and Def motion for settlement procedures , /19/2013 GMT Revise response re; motion for settlement procedures and file , /20/2013 GMT Analysis of Wes U. EMA on pending case /21/2013 GMT Review objection to response and various pleadings /26/2013 EDG Prepare Requests for Admission, 2nd Set of Non-Uniform Interrogatories & Requests for Production for Kingman Hospital GMT Attention to discovery /28/2013 GMT Revise reply re: motion for dismissing and research , /01/2013 EDG Receipt and review multiple s re Briana Oliver's AHCCCS and hospital liens GMT Attention to settlement issues re: Oliver; case management /03/2013 EDG Review of file re deadline: last day on Inactive Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

47 Page: 29 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours Calendar; office conference w/ Lisa re same GMT Case management /10/2013 EDG VM from and to client EDG Update New Clients index EDG Telephone call from Robert Pierson re status GMT Attention to KRMC Motion to dismiss. Call w Lance re: Strategy; Correspondence with Plaintiff's Case in Mohave County /11/2013 GMT Attention to strategy and conference with LE , /17/2013 EDG Telephone call from Erica Munoz Morales re status GMT Case management /18/2013 GMT Preparation re; Certification Hearing /19/2013 GMT Hearing Re; class cert hearing and past- hearing strategy Conference , /23/2013 GMT Attention to James Jolly issues; Attention to N. Toledo issue;attention to Federal Register Authority and analysis; Memo to Lance E; Review KRMC motion for 54b , /24/2013 GMT Revise response re; KRMC's Motion for Rule 54(B) Judgement, /25/2013 GMT Deal with Natasha Toledo issues /06/2013 GMT Review reply for 54b /16/2013 GMT Attention to ruling; Case management /21/2013 EDG Office conference w/ Atty. Trachtenberg re Notice from Correspondence to of Appeals re costs/initial brief due date GMT Case management issues /23/2013 GMT Attention to settlement issues; Case management /30/2013 EDG Telephone call from Erica Munoz re status GMT Case management /03/2013 EDG Telephone call from Marquiis and his mother re status GMT Correspond with Lonie, call with Estella Meldonado; attention to MSJ issues , /04/2013 GMT Research re: MSJ issues /05/2013 GMT Case management /12/2013 GMT MSJ preparation /17/2013 GMT Attention to MSJ preparation , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

48 Page: 30 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 06/19/2013 GMT Revise MSJ brief , /24/2013 EDG from Atty. Abney/forwarded by Atty. Trachtenberg requesting confirmation of recorded liens and paid lien amounts for original/paid lien Plaintiffs. Detailed review to confirm requested information /25/2013 EDG Detailed to Attys. Abney and Trachtenberg re lien verification EDG Online research to obtain recorded liens for: Bigler, Campuzano, Luna/Krueger, Mohamad, Pierson, Yerkey and Young GMT Case management , /26/2013 GMT Research regarding MSJ; Call with Lance E re: strategy , /27/2013 GMT Revise and File MSJ and SOF; Revise Order regarding ethical rules to settlement , /01/2013 EDG ed from Atty. Abney (forwarded from Atty. Trachtenberg) re lien/lien releases for Abbott and Yerkey. Online research to obtain lien/lien releases for Yerkey. to Atty. Abney & Trachtenberg GMT Case management /03/2013 EDG Online research to obtain liens for Robert Pierson EDG Scan/save lien information for Bigler, Pierson, and Luna-Krueger GMT Case management /21/2013 GMT Review and revise appellate opening brief/research; correspondence with LE , /22/2013 GMT Review app brief/opening , /14/2013 MDB Calendar deadlines GMT Case management/disclosures /20/2013 MDB Look up latest status. Look up last minute entry and case docket. Look up latest pleadings. attach info for jan to give status to client GMT Handle conservatorship issue re Brianne Phor and prepare pleadings; attend hearing in Tucson , /21/2013 GMT Review of rep. to MSJ and sources; calls with LE. ; begin research re case law , /22/2013 GMT Review sources; research re federal case; prepare outline of CFRs , /23/2013 MDB Look up phone numbers for the attorney's representing clients for our class action case. need to know DOL. Draft fax and ltrs and send ltrs to the LT paralegals Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

49 Page: 31 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al GMT Hours asking for info , Attn to appeal issues; research re other actions; research re class rep status on liens vs recovery , /26/2013 MDB Call to check receipt of fax and when i can expect an immediate respons. 08/26/ :03 pm MDB - updated excell sheet with info; s to various clients and attorneys; send out letters and faxes re: liens , JKH Receipt and review Jolly file e liens; info to Maribel GMT Case management /27/2013 MDB Continued to work on work sheet, enter new confirmed numbers in spread sheet, call other providers who have not called back. met with geoff and he confirms i'm on the right track with his request, follow up with Miscellaneous per and ltr , /28/2013 MDB Gib Zickerman's office - send him follow up requests MDB Review fax from Frances Lynch; Update sheet; Contact other attorneys who have not provided info, Zickerman - called Barbie - get her - send her new request; update excell sheet, reconfirmed what other liens needed to be confirmed; multple s etc. calculate final disposition of what clients will get at end of case MDB Received response from Francisco Gutierrez office - calculate figures and enter in axcel sheet - save copy etc.; Contact Craig Simon, did they get my request? yes they did. it is the nxt item for them to do MDB Received call from Craig Simon's office; Kim had some questions. - she will provide info needed on their two clients ASAP MDB Received info from Showard law. they rep 5 of of our clients. Calculate new numbers, add to excel sheet, call Maria de La Rosa. We still need more info to finalize numbers /29/2013 MDB Called back Maria at Showard Law MDB Pull file - received updated info from Mr. Simon. - review fax - enter info in excel - they did not provide total bills. call and spoke to kim. she gave breakdown. etc MDB Showard Law called back. they gave me down the breakdown for Mia and Claudia /30/2013 GMT Case management MDB Called Gib Zickerman, Jeff Hernandez and Rachel Leos. I sent them a fax with letter, left messages and followed up again today MDB Convo with Geoff re status - call and re G and O MDB Recalculated all 42 clients; determined % that will not get reimbursed for their loss. see spread sheet , Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

50 Page: 32 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours 09/04/2013 GMT Review and revise MSJ , /05/2013 GMT Review and revise MSJ/reply , /06/2013 MJH Winters: Review reply ISD MSJ; Meet with GMT regarding same GMT Correspond with LE GMT Case management /09/2013 GMT Case management /18/2013 GMT Attn to false notice issue with Banner /19/2013 GMT Prepare for oral argument /20/2013 GMT Oral argument re settlement procedures , /23/2013 GMT Attention to class notices /25/2013 GMT Case management /26/2013 GMT Review motion to amend and research , /27/2013 GMT Attention to motion to amend /30/2013 GMT Case management /02/2013 GMT Attention to settlement procedures /03/2013 GMT Case management /08/2013 GMT Attention to case status/amendment /14/2013 GMT Attention to oral argument strategy /15/2013 GMT Respond to class member inquiries /17/2013 MDB Pull file, review last pleadings. index and file - last order was for motion to amend answer to leave. send to Mr. Young with status. see my note. Index and file , MDB File index costs and discovery - separate backer /18/2013 MDB Continue filling, left off at 111, locate and make separate backers; file index appeal docs /22/2013 GMT Attention to responding to class member inquiries /23/2013 GMT Research and review Puch and impact on class action , /25/2013 GMT Case management /27/2013 GMT Attention to Puch /strategy on Winters /29/2013 GMT Telephone calls re: class member inquiries Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

51 Page: 33 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al 10/31/2013 GMT Attention to Puch/publication re: Winters /05/2013 GMT Case management /12/2013 GMT Attention to hospital supp. pleading , /13/2013 GMT Attention to oral argument prep , /15/2013 GMT Continue oral argument prep , /18/2013 GMT Case management /19/2013 MDB Filing separate correspondence, pleadings, appeal/superior court and other docs - start filing GMT Telephone call with class member re: settlement /20/2013 MDB Continue finishing filing, indexing appeals, state pleadings and disclosure, make new backer unpresented patients who have received notice of lien GMT Continue oral argument prep /21/2013 GMT Final ora argument prep /22/2013 MDB Correspond with Geoff re oral argument today. He is going and is all set GMT Oral argument including pre- and past-argument conferences , /27/2013 GMT Telephone call with Wells re: status and potential options /13/2013 GMT Case management /19/2013 GMT Telephone call with class member re: settlement /07/2014 GMT Attention to Pye bankruptcy and research re: stay and violation by hospital , /08/2014 GMT Attention to Pye bankruptcy /10/2014 GMT Correspondence re: Pye bankruptcy /14/2014 GMT Case management GMT Correspondence with LE re: case strategy /17/2014 GMT Review ME/conference with LE; prepare notice to clients; case management , /20/2014 GMT Correspondence with LE re: strategy /21/2014 GMT Review Motion for Judicial Notice/supp. record on appeal; study Judge Gama's ME and evaluate case status; telephone calls with LE re: case status, posture, necessary steps; Hours Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

52 Page: 34 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Hours Evaluation attorney fees issues; Letter to class members; Research Wes vs. Shelby status , /22/2014 LAB T/C to atty Francisco Gutierrez and spoke with his assistant Yolanda to obtain contact info for Amanda Gates Faena LAB Telephone calls to open lien plaintiffs to obtain/verify addresses; update contact information for open lien plaintiffs; mail letter to open lien plaintiffs re Judge Gama's ruling on MSJ; Telephone call to Barbie in Gib Zuckerman's office re notifying probate court re Judge Gama's ruling in the Brianna Phair Conservatorship case /24/2014 LAB T/C from Allen Bullis re State Court ruling and status of his money held in trust LAB Draft Notice of State Court Ruling to file in Pima Count Probate Court re Conservatorship of Brianna Phair GMT Telephone call with Allen Bullis; wants his funds released /27/2014 LAB Revise Notice of State Court Ruling; finalize, scan and copy for mailing; prepare letter to Clerk of Probate Court in Pima County enclosing original plus two copies of Notice; mail copies to Zickerman and Bohnke GMT Prepare for declaration; contact various attorneys to do declarations in support and prepare draft; revise judgement , /28/2014 GMT Research and revise fee application; revise statement of costs; revise judgement , /29/2014 GMT Finalize fee application , For Current Services Rendered , Recapitulation Timekeeper Hours Rate Total Lisa Balbini 4.80 $ $ Justin Henry Jane Hutchison Maribel Buford , Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg 1, , Eve Greenberg , Total Current Work 712, Balance Due $712, Billing History Fees Expenses Advances Finance Charge Payments 712, Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

53 Page: 35 Geoffrey - Class Action Trachtenberg 01/29/2014 Account No: Statement No: CV/Class Action vs. Banner Health et al Payments received after May 10, 2013 are not reflected in balance due. We accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover Card & American Express Exhibit One to Trachtenberg Decl. dated 1/29/14

54 EXHIBIT 2

55 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8O(I). ARCP 1. My name is Lance Entrekin, Esq., and I am an attomey licensed to. practice law in Arizona. I am the owner of Lance Entrekin P.C., which has offices in Phoenix and Tucson under the name "The Entrekin Law Firm." 2. Along with Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Esq., I am lead counsel to a certifíed class of Plaintiffs in the suit styled Winters et al. v. Banner et a1., Case No. CV20L , Maricopa County Superior Court. Recently, the Court granted summary judgment in the key dispute in that litigation and, accordingly, we have moved for an award of fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine. Because all of our clients are indigent and unable to pay, our retainer agreements with our clients do not set an hourly rate. 3. In situations where the Court chooses to award fees pursuant to the private attorney general doctrine and no hourly fee is set forth in the retainer, the Court is to determine a reasonable hourly rate based upon: a) the qualities of the advocate; b) the character of the work done; cj the work actually performed by the lawyer; and d) the result. Radish v. Arizona, 868 P.zd 335,I77 Ariz.322,332 (App. 1993); Schweiger v. China Doll Restauront, Inc.,13B Ariz. LB3, LB7 [App. 1983J. QUALITIES OF THE ADVOCATE 4. I have been a member of the State Bar of Arizona ("SBA") for nineteen years and been the head of my own firm for fifteen years. During that time, I have served on the SBA Fee Arbitration Committee, been an instructor in dozens of CLE courses focusing on complex litigation, assisted in authoring a respected legal treatise and am an author of a legal affairs colurnn for the Arizona Republic.

56 5. During my nearly two decades of practice, I've focused on large, complex litigation, usually for Plaintiffs and usually on a contingent fee basis. I have extensive first-chair trial experience and have been admitted to try complex cases in Missouri (complex commercial litigation), Nevada (professional malpractice), the Central District of California þatent litigation) and the Southem District of Indiana þatent litigation). Most of my work comes from referrals fi'orn other lawyers who are familiar with my experience, work ethic and the quality of my representation. 6. I also have extensive experience as lead attomey on appeal and two of my appellate cases, Zuern v. Ford Motor Co., 188 Ariz. 486,937 P.2d 676 (App. 1996), and Wilmot v. Wilmot,2}3 Ariz.565, 58 P.3d 507 (2002), have become important product liability and professional malpractice precedents in the Arizona legal community. 7. My hourly rate generally varies between $400 and $500 per hour. Recently, for example, my office resolved two complex litigation contingent fee cases and in both my effective hourly compensation exceeded $500 per hour. My experience in class action work is significant and is detailed in the sworn statement filed with the Motion to Certiff. CHARACTER OF THE WORK DONE 8. Since the Lizer case in2004, plaintiffs' attorneys have publicly stated a class action to make Arizonahospitals comply with federal law was needed, but none would attempt it. Conversations prior to frling indicated this was because: a) the class members cannot pay attorneys fees and there is no fee shifting statute; b) the combination of Medicaid law and class action law was too complex and difficult;

57 c) defense counsel has an extraordinary track record in this area and had already defeated two class actions involving Arizona hospitals billing Medicaid; d) managing several dozen lead plaintiffs would be hugely burdensome and being indigent, many could not hold out for years, which could deprive the class of standing; e) the class action would not meaningfully change matters unless dozens of hospitals were sued simultaneously, which could be extraordinarily burdensome for plaintiffs' counsel; and f) it is generally very difficult to have state statutes held preempted' 9. When other attomeys learned that I, a sole practitioner and Mr. Trachtenberg, leader of a three-attorney firm, were attempting this, most tried to dissuade us-including defense counsel. THE WORK ACTUALLY PERFORMED BY THE LAWYER 10. I am a sole practitioner with one paralegal. Over the last three years, with Mr. Trachtenberg, I've filed or responded to 75 contested pleadings, many long and complex in nature. ['ve taken an active hand in managing 40 indigent lead plaintiffs, made several extensive disclosures, reviewed thousands of pages of discovery and responses to FOIA requests, worked extensively with three expert witnesses and appeared before the Court many times. 11. In the last three years, I've worked a little over 6,000 billable hours in my entire practice, all cases included. As reflected in the time sheets, attached hereto as Exhibit One, a total of I,573.9 of these hours were on this case. In other words, more than a quarter of my entire practice for three years has been this case. The tasks and

58 hours set forth in those time sheets arc ftue and correct and reflect work that was reasonable and necessary to achieve the results obtained in this case. THE RESULT t2. Of all putative class actions filed, roughly 1% result in certification and thereafter, judgment for the plaintiff. Counsel and Mr. Trachtenberg achieved that result against 33 hospital defendants, a first in Arizona. Medicaid cases are known to be particularly difficult, because of their complexity. 13. Because of these efforts, 33 Arizona hospitals have been brought into compliance with federal law, a state statute has been held preempted and an important right of the indigent has been vindicated, which will confer millions of dollars in annual benefits on indigent Arizona citizens. REQTJESTED AMOUNT 14. In light of the qualities of the advocate, the character of the work done, the work actually performed and the result, an hourly fee of $425 is warranted for a total Iodestar fee of $668, This request is supported further by accompanying sworn statements of other prominent attorneys. 15. Hourly multipliers of up to 3.42have been upheld in cases like this one with exceptional results (see Charles L Friedman PC v. Miuosoft,I4l P.3d 824 (App. 2006)). While this is wholly discretionary with the Court, counsel respectfirlly asserts that a multiplier of 2.0 is reasonable in this case given the risk of nonpayment, effort and result for a total fee award of $1,337, for my time.

59 I declare under penalty of perjurythatthe foregoingis Fue and correct. E ecuted on: Ianuary fr,20i4.4,4+,l

60 Attorney Date Description Hours 05/30/11 research Arizoan balance billing and regulations researched preemption issues regarding balance billing 06101l11 researched preemption issues regarding balance billing researched preemption issues regardig state balance billing at library 06/06/11 spoke with GT about potential class action, reviewed draft complaint he put together ead Lizer case; read Complaint GT filed in court regarding balance billing his client; exchanged seven s with GT; discussed what criteria to look for in potential class members drafted association agreement; exchanged several s with GT; reviewed letters from hospitals attempting to assert accord and satisfaction defense; began researeh on that defense 06/08/11 lunch with GT to discuss case; researched potential clients; researched potential dfendants; ressearched priveate/public status of UMC and what this would mean for Notice of Claim; read and researched Smallwood case regarding breach of contract cause of action; several s to and from GT 06/09/11 discussed Gordon Goodnow communications.with GT, what this would mean 0.3 to class action to GT, read and statute, review annotations 06113l1l discussed Medicaid expert and contacting Gary Urman for leads; began state level research for all states on ; reviewed public/ private status of more that a dozen potential defendants; discussed their balance practices with GT; review list of potential lead plaintiffs from GT; researched possibility of claims for wrongfully retaining Medpay; em-mails to and from GT several s with GT; discussed Lucas Smith as potential lead plaintiff; read pleadings from Matt Riggs on Native Air case; continued research on state court's treatment of drafted and communicated on retainer agreement comprehensively researched state court treatment of from GT; read Goodnow letter regarding treatment of liens; went back to Notice of Claim issue from GT; discussed Northewest as defendant; potential lead plaintiff for Banner; reviewed credentials of Lan Lievense and fee schedule; discussed him as potential expert researched state court treatmeñ of extensively researched 'l (GXH) and (L) online, to include legislative history; researched AHCCCS enforcement scheme; went through AHCCCS biller fraud presentation on web site; discussed Botsko with GT researched state regulation R ; began research on whether Arizona has HHS waiver to balance bill; numerous s from GT many s from GT; discussed status of James Jolley; discussed Brandon Stovall as lead plaintiff; reviewed Botsko fee agreement; researched waiver issue s from GT; read document form Alex Wold; researched waiver issue by reviewing waiver documents and state Medicaid plan from GT regarding accord and satisfaction defense; legal research regarding illegality in accord and satisfaction context read Lievense ; s from GT regarding accord and satisfaction; reveiwed GT's FOIA request; reviewed provider contract on line reviewed class action retainer statue 06/30/11 researched 1983 claim in both state and federal court; met with David Botsko ' s Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated

61 t02t t08t t13t t t18t t27 t11 07t t /03/1 1 08/08/1 1 08/09/ t ogl t26t reviewed Burnham collection letters researched state treatmenl of researched state treatme nt of nationwide to GT, read and statute, review annotations to Botsko regarding provider agreemtns and from GT on same began research on circuit and district court cases on completed research on circuit and district court treatmen o'l researched whether CAFA would allow filing in state coutl began research on class ceftification, to GT regarding same researched class certification under state and federal cases; communicated with GT's staff regarding past lien cases researched calss certification under state and federal cases reviewed provider contract materials from Melanie Herrtng s to and from GT reegarding waiver memo; revisited waiver issue in light of memo's claim researched federal ju risdiction read 18 page memo from Burnham regarding fedra lien collection practices and researched cases he cites; spoke with Cook at HHS regarding waiver and exchanged s nationwide search on third party standing for AHCCCS patients researched accord and satisfaction as against public policy researched history of balance billing Medicaid patients researched history of balance billing Medicaid patients from GT; researched history of Arizona Medicaid researched legislative history of Arizona statutes and regulations read draft motion for summary judgment on these issues and read cases cited s form GT regarding Botsko; from Cook reviewed provider contracts; reviewed lawyer competency affidavits; researched and downloaded liens filed by defendants; discussed clearing all allegations with plaintiffs; researched lien volume estimates for numerosity purposes; cleared affidavit with Botsko; s regarding same to and from GT numerous s with GT, worked to make sure that all factual allegations regarding Jackiee Abbot, stephanie Luna Kreuger and every other plaintiff are accurate read accord and satisfaction opinion from state appellate court; researched othe cases cited therein; read draft Complaint of lien class cation filed by Coben, researched cases for suppotl in our case researched discovery areas, researched history of lien fìlings on lnie researched discovery areas, worked on pulling together file for initial disclosures worked on discovery issued and initial disclosure worked on discovery and initial disclosure, researched lien filing history on county side researched discovery cases researched disccovery precedents finished discovery and disclosure research and discussed with GT discussed possible TMC lead clients from Michael Kern; reviewed Newton- Nations v. BEtlach and cases cited therein, studied Arizona waiver under s1315 communications regarding Luman and lead plaintiff researched possible injunction for attempts by defendants to exclude people from pending class 08t28111 communications from John Breslo regarding defendants' ongoing collection I 0.' Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. daled

62 actions; dozen s regarding same; finished researching possible injunction for attempts by defendants to exclude people from pending class reviewed new collection.letters from defendants ànd researched cases they cite '1 reveiwed defendants'ongoing collection attempts and rationales offered Ogl02l1'l communications regarding new lead plaintiffs OglO7l11 reviewed draft pleadings from Artigue; communications with and regarding Artiþue reviewed information on new lead plaintiffs and incorporated facts concerning them into existing documents; half dozen s form GT regarding same; communications regarding stipulation sought by Artigue s with GT and Artigue regarding service and adding new defendants research on case Bynum v. Magno and cases cited therein Ogl15l11 prepare for arguments regarding whether A.R.A (G)(5) and (H)(a) are preemptedby 42 U.S.C. S13964(4X25)(c) AND 42 C.F.R prepare for public policy arguments regarding accord and satisfaction Ogl19l11 prepare for certification issues on first sub class '1 prepare for certification issues on second sub class Ogl29l11 research Anderson case and progeny '1 research Labombard and additionallien law precednets research issue of whether AHCCCS beneficiaries have third party standing to ' assert breach of contract claims under contracts entered into between AHCCCS and AHCCCS providers; communications with GT regarding Artigue s reviewed U.S. v. Bue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama and related cases 10/05/1 1 reviewed motion for summary judgment on accord and satisfaction in other case and cases cited l review Rutter Guide review Signature Flight Support Corp. and related cases on accord and satisfaction discussion regarding the new collection letters from defendants and research legal options work on response to dismissal motion '1 work on response to dismissal motion work on response to dismissal motion work on response to dismissal motion review corporate disclosure statements and check ACC site reviewed court's scheduling and disclosure order, s from GT regarding disclosure, reviewed GT's draft discovery schedule from GT regarding discovery scheedule looked at revisions to discovery schedule, Rule 26(f) meeting from Artigue stating objection on HIPAA grounds; begin research on HIPAA's effect on medical billing discovery research on HIPAA's effect on medical billing discovery research on HIPAA's effect on medical billing discovery reviewed Burnham's response in Keever case review Burnham's letter attempting to treat any payment as an "opt out"; researched opting out of class action researched opting out of class action genearlly '1 from GT; research rules regarding publication of decision, in response to their attack on Lizer research rules regarding publication of decision from GT and researched rules regarding publication of decision ' Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated 1/29114

63 reviewed latest collection letter from JCL, communicate with Matt Millea regarding class definition research whether Robin Sieverts' statement constitutes fraud 12t01111 research whether Robin Sieverts' statement constitutes fraud, reüiew Medieaid plan, review waiver documents 'l communicate with GT and Millea regarding case strategy review proposed protective order and HIPAA regulations from GT; review proposed protective order and HIPAA regulations 'l communications regarding Artigue discovery strategy communications back and forth with Greg Gnepper re: HIPAA communications with Ben Jemser re: lien collections practices review spread sheets summarizing funds collected by JCL, NAH, Northwestern '1 review spread sheets summarizing funds collected research disgorgement cases research disgorgement cases review spread sheets summarizing funds collected review all monies ccillected by all entities and dficiencies in responses 01lOBl12 prepare for oral argument oral argument and strategy thereafter with GT review new Banner spreadsheets reviewed new disclosures on damàges from GT regarding disclosure gaps; read Puch v. Soscia and associated cases regarding AHCCCS regulations read ln re Apollo Group petition for fes and cases cited looked at latest damages disclosure researched effect of voluntary dismissal several s setting meeting with Burnham proofed letter to class regarding next steps researched injunctions regarding defendants' actions worked on strategy issues for new filing worked out strategy for new filing reviewed Zickerman letter re: defendants' collections communicatinos from Hank Hester regarding actions of defendants communication from Burnham; researched legal issues underlying appropriate retainers in class action cases; drafted retainer communication with GT regarding case strategy communication with GT regarding case strategy follow up on gathering retainers s from GT regarding retainers confirm association of counsel; from Burnham counsulted with Feldman, Glicksman, Taber, Levy, McDonaldd and others regarding appellate review of issues presented in Arizona courts O4l2Ol12 reveiwed Preese case and cited cases on waiver; broader search on waiver; exhaustive review of language used in defendants' lien releases researched abuse of process and slander of title for state court claims researched torluous intereference and did supplemental research on unjust enrichment researched fraud as it applies to JCL drafted Complaint and certificate O5lO1l12 discuss adding Shawn Moen to case, read his history discuss Wright v. Smith with GT followed up on Shawn Moen as lead plaintiff; conference with GT at his office z.o s Exhibit One to Entrek n Decl. daled

64 regarding case prepare exhibrts for filing researched Rule B(l); drafted and filed certificatioinn of complexity; wrote motion for certification researched Miller v. Gorski and discuss with GT why it is different from our legal framework in Arizona communications from Burnham regarding fraud pleading; researched rule governing pleading fraud; researched case law; referred to JCL letter, drafted first amended Complaint began work on additional discovery researched treatment of balance billing on AHCCCS web site; arranged to have key sections of AHCCCS web site copied into downloadable files for disclosure researched waiver on balance billing across nation, discussion with GT regarding same researched waiver, state Medicaid Plan criteria, different types of federal waivers potential expert witness on federal waiver and potential fact witness on intent of state provider contract worked on researchingg HHS waiver law, searched for HHS expert phone callwith Dave Botsko; phone callwith Julie Lewis; researched expert credentials searched nation wide for experts on Medicaid plan and waivers calls with several Medicaid attorneys; put together summary package with exhibits met with Robaina regarding expert strategy researched DAB and ALJ decisions;researched 412 CFR 447 (all sections) researched DAB and ALJ decisions; researched 412 CFR 447 (all sections) worked on research and draft expert affidavit called Barker communicated with GT; calls to Barker; worked on affidavit revisions calls to Bradshaw phone callwith Bradshaw, research HHS ruling on illegal aliens reviewed communications from Barker s with Barker; call with GT; review expert affidavit researched expert issues related to affidavit preparation and phone conference with Barker and Margulies follow up information to Barker and research s to and from Geoff; researched new 447.'15 cases worked on Rule 16.3 schedule from Gammage & Burnham and response negotiated and filed stipulation s to and from Hering; began research for response to motion to dismiss worked on response; spoke with Jeff; s with Barker callfrom GT;worked on motion worked on motion; s to and from Barker; to GT s with GT and Barker re: affidavit and final motion finished motion worked on issues regarding future disclosure to GT reviewed communications from Barker researched next move; discussed with GT; read scheduling order from court Ogl19l12 form GT; researched new expert Ogl21l12 letter to GT Exh bit One to Entrekin Decl. dated

65 Ogl24l12 read filing from GT read court order; spoke with J. Curtin; phone conference with GT for future strategy researched resopnse time under Rule 12; s form GT and Gnepper discussed strategy with GT, began motion to certify worked all day on motion to certify worked on motion to certify worked on motion to certify communications with GT regarding strategy moving fon vard worked with GT on motions strategy with GT on motions numerous s to and from GT regarding new cliets numerous s to and from GT regarding new clients numerous s to and from GT regarding new clients numerous s to and from GT regarding new clients worked on motion to certify;worked on response to motion read materials from GT, review Burnham's new strategy drafted and filed Reply; reviewed motion to strike researched efforts by defense to disqualify lead plaintiffs communications from GT regarding clients communications with GT regarding attempts to settle all our lead plaintiffs 12l}4l 12 communications regarding rulings order form court on all three motions; conference with GT finished and sent motion to certify communications with GT regarding lead plaintiffs worked on Botsko and Vogt disclosures s from ARtigue, GT, Boptsko; researched experts worked on nailing down all expert affidavits 01/03/13 worked on expert disclosures 01/05/13 worked on expert disclosures, communicated with GT, Barker and Botsko worked on expert disclosures 01/08/13 finished and sent expert disclosures Started Reply got Newberg on Class Actions and started on co-attorney allegation research worked on Reply worked on Reply worked on Reply started on disclosure statement worked on disclosure statement communications with GT re: case prepared for and made presentation to KRMC attorneys regarding settlement worked on emergency standing motion worked on emergency standing motion, disclosure statement worked on disclosure statement worked on disclosure statement I 13 finished disclosure statement communications with GT regarding filing of standing motion, 54 (b ) response drafted 54(b) response researched effect of proposed new legislation on our case and strategies relatec thereto worked on strategy on motion with GT read and prepared oral argument on Rule 54(b) reply ' ' ' Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated 1/29/14

66 conferred with GT regrading opposing experts subpoena and motion to court for same sorked on appeal 03/06/13 worked on response to motion to dlsmtss worked on response to motion to dismiss finished response to motion to dismiss worked on response to settlement motion worked on response to settlement motion 03/18/13 worked on response to settlement motion 03/19/13 worked on response to settlement motion reviewed objections to response research on Puch case and related issues in alljurisdictions review rulings and discuss strategy with GT prepare for oral argument prepare for oral argument prepare for and do oral argument review and research KRMC motion research and write response to same research and file resopnse to same 05/06/13 review KRMC Reply in support of same review appeals index 05/18/'13 read minute entry denying KRMC motion researched options if certification is denied read motion granting certification; researched duties of lead class counsel for review appeals index 06/03/13 research and write appellate brief 06/06/13 work on appellate brief work on appellate brief work on appellate brief work on appellate brief 06/13/13 work on appellate brief start motion for summary judgment and statement of facts work on motion for summary judgment and statement of facts 06/18/13 work on motion for summary judgment and statement of facts work on motion for summary judgment and statement of facts work on motion for summary judgment and statement of facts work on motion for summary judgment and statement of facts prepared draft order for settlement procedures and filing documents worked with GT to revise draft order and motion for summary judgment finished and filed motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents 06/30/13 review order of dimsissal regarding Corbett review stipulation regarding resopnse to motion began research on appellate brief worked on brief worked on brief 07 l1ol13 researched brief 07 I researched brief drafted brief work on dismissal regarding Cobos;wrote draft researched file, drafted and filed second supplemental disclosure, letter to GT regarding final disclosures wrote brief, review and revise Abney draft 'r Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated 1/29114

67 review and revise Abney draft review GT researche; s to Gl review and file brief read defendants' notice of errata read defendants' response and cross motion, did research began research on response to cross motion read motion for procedural order; continued research on cross motion researched cross motion began resonse and reply worked on resopnse and reply finished draft response and reply, worked on statement of facts 08/30/13 finished alldrafts of response and reply 09/03/13 reviewed trachtenberg draft, began revision integrated four draft motions and statementsd of facts, gathered exhibits 09/05/13 finished alldrafts and agreed with GT on final 09i06/13 polished and filed response and replywith allsupporting documents OglO7l13 to and from GT re: liability 09/08/13 from GT re: strategy 09/09/13 three s from and two to GT re: deadlines Ogl18l13 six s from GT re: liability 09/19/13 prepare for oral argument on settlement procedures Ogl21l13 prepare and attend oral argument on settlement procedures two s from and one to GT re: Winters plan from GT re: same read defendants' motino to amend, reserached Rule 15, drafted response one from and three to GT re: motion 09/30/'13 read reply supporting cross motion, researched same; s to and from Herin regarding stipulation;two s from GT read and approved stipulation re: settlement procedures; from GT re: sam 10/03/13 s to and from GT re:winters case 10/08/13 read Minute Entry, Answer to Second Amended Complaint, noted changes read Minute Entry from GT re: Winters strateg from GT re: Winters oralargument two s from GT re: Winters case law from GT re: Winters case five s from and two to GT re: impact of Puch decision on Winters, phone call s to and from GT re: Winters and Puch two s from and one to GT re: impact of Puch three s from GT re: Winters and impact of Puch two s from GT re: Winters going forward two s from and one to GT, advise on publication motion for Puch case regarding Winters issues from GT re: Winters publication issue advise on Puch publication motion for Winters three s from and one to GT re: third party standing read defendants' supplemental statemetn of facts; do analysis of how this impacts us; research motion to strike prepare for oral argument on liability prepare for oral argument on liability prepare for oral argument on liability 't ' Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated 1/29/14

68 Total two s from GT and oral argument; prepare prepare for oral argument on liability prepare for oral argument on liability prepare for oral argument on liability two s from GT re: oral argument; prepare and do oral argument on all motions for judgment read Minute Entry research AHCCCS contractual issues research AHCCCS contractual issues research AHCCCS contractual issues read notice of bankr{uptcy, phoen callwith GT, research impact on class action 01/08/13 two s from and one to GT re. Winters related bankruptcy three s from and one to GT re: re: Winters related bankruptcy from GT re: Winters going forward four s from GT re: Winters strategy; trial preperation in event motion is denied one from and two to GT re: Winters liability one from and two to GT re: Winters strategy read two Minute Entries, four s from GT re: next steps; phone call re; same; plan next steps three s from GT re: strategy for next steps researched fee appliation, cost statement, form of judgment issues researched and began writing fee application, cost statemetn, form of judgment fee application, cost statement, form of judgment fee application, cost statement, form of judgment Total hours 4.5 ' s73.9 Exhibit One to Entrekin Decl. dated 1/29/14

69 E,XHIBIT 3

70 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8O(I), ARCP l. My name is Richard S. Piattner, Esc1., and I am an attorney adrnitted to practice law in Arizcna state and federal courts and before the US 9ú Circuit Court of Appeals. I predominately represent injured persons at the law firm of Plattner Verderame. P.C. 2. I have been licensed to practice law for 36 years and am a past-president ofthe Alizona Association fol Justice. I amcertified by the American Boa d of Trial Aclvocates ("ABOTA") and a Certitied Specialist in hr.iury and Wrongfirl Death Litigation t,ith the State Bar of Arizona I have treeri recognized by sevelal organizatious, includirg l\4artindale-hubbell (AV-Preenrinent Rated), Sr;per Larvyers, and "Best Lau,yers in America" by U S. Neq,s & World Report I've placticed coutiuuousllr 111 Plioenix since I 977, have represelited countless persors in tlre State of Arizona, and am farniliar rvith approllriate legalfees ìn and alound the State 3. I have known Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg for more than ten years and arn very lanriliar with his work. Among other things, he is a partner at Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PI-C. He attended U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, which is a "top I0" law school, wliere he graduated among the top of his class. He is a former federal law clerk, actively licensed and practices in three states (Arizona, Califo nia and Utah) and admitted to the practice of law for 17 years. Recently, the Board of Legal Specialization for the Arizona State Bar recommended him for specialist certitication in Personal Injury and Wrongfi.rl Death. He has also been recognized for a uumber of yeals bymartinclale-hurbbell (AV-Preemirrent Ratecl). Super Lar,r,1,s 5 (listecl in "Arizona Top 50" f'or 2014), AVVO ( 10.0 rated) ancl Best Larvyers in U S. Nervs & World Report He serves on the Boarcl of Governors for the State Bar of Arizona, is Chainnan of the Rules Committee and recently spearheaded the amendment to Ethical Rule 1.15, Arizona Ruies of Professional Responsibility and is a Judge Pro Tem with the Maricopa County Superior Court., He is an executive officer for the Arizona Association for Justice, the co-author of the 1

71 Arizona Personal Injury Lien Law & Practice Guide, and has taught numerous CLE courses on complex litigation. 4. I am also familiar with Lance Entrekin as a member of the A izona Association for Justice. Among other things, he attended a top 20law school, has been adlnitted to the practice of law for l9 years and has served on the State Bar of Arizona Fee Arbitration Committee for many years. He has taught numerous CLE courses on complex litigation and was couiisei on l\ilmot v. Wilmot and Zuern v. Ford, two very well-known Arizona product lia'oiiity and wrongful death precedents, and is a name partner in his firm. 5. I am familiar with the case Winters et. al. v. Banner et. al.,cv20l (Maricopa Superior Court) ("Wirflers"\ which is an important case followed closely by competent personal injury lawyers across A izona, This case required Mr. Trachtenberg and lv{r Entrekin to be responsible for several dozen lead plaintiffs while sitnultaneously litigating against 33 hospitals. They have litigated this case actively for three years, have obtained class certification (lvherein approximately 150 other lawyers arouud the state urged the Court of certify a class) and have obtained summary judgment on the class's behalf. 6. I am aware that this summary judgment provides a basis for an injunction that wili prevent thousands of indigent Arizona patients on AHCCCS, including several of my own clients, from being forced to pay hospìtal liens that violate federal law. The Winlet'scase provides long overdue relief to a large group of economically disenfranchised people who lacked the resources and ability to litigate against powerful hospitals demanding their money, They faced the impossible choice of having all or most of their funds tied up while litigating the matter against the hospital or agreeing to release a porlion of the proceeds to the hospitals in order to access their funds. 7. I have reviewed the hourly rates charged by Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Esq. ($425lhr), Lance Entrekin. Esq., ($425ihr) and Justin Henry, Esq. ($250/hr). It is my opinion, based upon my personal knowledge, experience and farnilìarity with legal services in the Phoenix metropolitan area, that these hourly rates are reasonable and customary for the work 2

72 descrilied, whiah preduoetl or sigrrifieantly contributûd to the result described:lrcrein and/or was propøly biitableass pa,é ofthe norrnal litïgation proscss' 8- Tl a Winter.rqsè involved nnìltiplo novel end eompfexlegal and fretual issues, thê.t rir oüld bane preoerrted a daunting ohallenge and signific*.nt rt* to these attorneyt. Tbe tirne rreeded ts pursue this ras wou'ld certaiel.y have prshed asidc aad prw nt d them Èoln proeoseing other work, ard required a high leve of skïll' I dcclare under ponalty of perjury that tfie foregoitg ie true end earreot. E resutedoo: January 27,zo4 3

73 EXHIBIT 4

74 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8OO. ARCP L. My name is J. Tyrrell Taber, and I am an attorney admitted to practice law by the State Bars of A izona and California. I predominately represent injured persons, within Arizona at the law firm of Aiken, Schenk, Hawkins & Ricciardi, P.C., where I am a full equity Partner. 2. I've been licensed to practice law since I was a member of the Board of Directors of the Arizona Association of Defense Counsel and am a Board Member and President-Elect of the A izona Association for Justice. 3. I am a Certified Specialist in Personal Injury and'wrongful Death Litigation, AV rated by Martindale-Hubbell (AV-Preeminent Rated), and recognized by Super Lawyers and Arizona's Finest Lawyers. 4. I serve on the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Arizona Court Reporter Board. 5. Although my present practice is primarily devoted to the representation of tort victims, I have litigated many commercial cases, involving contract and statutory interpretation. I have represented countless persons throughout the State of Arizona, from Page to Nogales, and am very familiar with appropriate legal standards and fees in and around the State. 6. I've known Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg for over five years and am very familiar with his work. Among other things, he is a partner at Iævenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC. He attended U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, which is a "top 10" law school, where he graduated among the top of his class. He is a former federal law clerk, actively licensed to practice in three states (Arizona, California and Utah) and admitted to the practice of law for L7 years. Recently, the Board of Iægal Specialization for the Arizona State Bar recommended him for "specialist certification in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death. He's also been recognized

75 for a number of years by Martindale-Hubbell (AV-Preeminent Rated), Super Lawyers (listed in "Atizona Top 50" for 2014), AWO (10.0 rated) and Best Lawyers in U.S. News & World Report. He serves on the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Arizona, is Chairman of the Rules Committee and recently spearheaded the amendment to Ethical Rule 1.L5, Arizona Rules of Professional Responsibility. He is an executive officer for the Arizona Association for Justice, the co-author of the A izona Personal Injury Lien Law & Practice Guide, and has taught numerous CT.F. courses on complex litigation. 7. In addition, I have spent many hours speaking with Geoff about a variety of issues that span the full spectrum of tort matters. Geoff is a brilliant mind, creative, ingenious and persistent. He is the type of lawyer that will see an issue, take it on and fight it through to the end. He is proactive, other-centered and dedicated to the fullest protections of the citizens and residents of our state. His compassion and care are at the highest level of the scale. 8. I am familiar with the case Winters et. ai. v. Banner et. al., CV2OL (Maricopa Superior Court) ("Winters"), which is an important case followed by every competent personal injury lawyer in the State. This case required Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Entrekin to be responsible for several dozen lead plaintiffs while simultaneousty litigating against 33 hospitals. They have litigated this case actively for three years, have obtained class certification (wherein approximately 150 other lawyers around the state urged the Court to certify a class) and have obtained summary judgment on the class' behalf. 9. I am aware that this summary judgment provides a basis for an injunction that will prevent thousands of indigent Arizona patients on AHCCCS, including several of my own clients, from being fo ced to pay hospital liens that violate federal law. The Winters case provides long overdue relief to a large group of economically disenfranchised people who lacked

76 the resources and ability to litigate against powerful hospitals demanding their money. They faced the impossible choice of having all or most of their funds tied up while litigating the matter against the hospital or agreeing to release a portion of the proceeds to the hospitals in order to access their funds. 10. I am also quite familiar with the position of the Defendants in this litigation. They held firmly to unreasonable positions and efused reasonable accommodations from the inception of the "lien wars," that now permeate tort litigation in A izona, They were well funded and intractably committed to win the day in court. They had all the financial resources and topflight law firm to represent them. It was a tremendous feat to litigate against such powerful wealthy parties. 1,1,. I've reviewed the time records for I-evenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC in the Winters case that spans 2011 through 2014, and I've reviewed the hourly rates charged by Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Esq. ($425lhÐ and Justin Henry, Esq. ($250/hr), as well as paralegals Jane Hutchison, Eve Greenberg, Maribel Buford and Lisa Balbini (which range between $l-25lhr to S275lL:u). It is my opinion, based upon my personal knowledge, experience and familiarity with legal services in the Phoenix metropolitan area, that these hourly rates are reasonable and appropriate for the work described which produced or significantly contributed to the result described he ein and/or was properly billable as a part of the normal litigation process. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: January 21,ZOt+ J F:UTT\Trachtenberg, Geoffrey\CLEAN - DECT,ARATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8O(l).doc

77 EXHIBIT 5

78 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO RULE 8O(II. ARCP l. My name is Thomas M. Ryan, Esq., and I am an attorney admitted to practice law by the State Bar of Arizona where I predominately represent injured persons at the Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan. 2. I've been licensed to practice law for over 30 years and am a past- President of the Arizona Association for Justice, I am a Certifìed Specialist in Injury and Wrongful Death Litigation with the State Bar of Arizona. I have been recogmzedby several prestigious organizations, including Martindale-Hubbell (AV-Preeminent Rated), Super Lawyers, and "Best Lawyers in America" by U.S. News & 'World Report. I've represented countless persons in the State of Arizona and am very familiar with appropriate legal fees in and around the State. 3. ['ve known Geoffrey M. Trachtenberg for over ten years and am very familiar with his work. Among other things, he is a partner at Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC. He attended U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, which is a "top 10" law school, where he graduated among the top of his class. He is a former federal law clerk, actively licensed and practice in three states (Arizona, Califomia and Utah) and admitted 1o the practice of law for l7 years. Recently, the Board of Legal Specialization for the Arizona State Bar recommended him for specialist certif,rcation in Personal Injury and Wrongful Death. He's also been recognized for a number of years by Martindale- Hubbell (AV-Preerninent Rated), Super Lawyers (listed in "Arizona Top 50" for 2014), AVVO (10.0 rated) and Best Lawyers in U.S. News & World Report. He serves on the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Arizona, is Chairman of the Rules Committee and recently spearheaded the amendment to Ethical Rule l.l 5, Arizona Rules of

79 Professional Responsibility and is a Judge Pro Tem with the Maricopa County Superior Court. He is an executive officer for the Arizona Association for Justice, the co-author of the Arizona Personal Injury Lien Law & Practice Guide, and has taught numerous CLE courses on complex litigation. 4. I've am also familiar with Lance Entrekin as a member of the Arizona Association for Justice, Among other things, he attended a top 20\aw school, has been admitted to the practice of law for 19 years and has served on the State Bar of Arizona Fee Arbitration Committee for many years. He has taught numerous CLE courses on complex litigation and was counsel on Wilmot v. Wilmot and Zuern v. Ford, two very well-known Arizonaproduct liability and professional malpractice precedents and is a name partner in his firm. 5, I am familiar with the case Winters et. al. v. Banner et. al., CV20I (Maricopa Superior Court) ("Winters"), which is an important case followed by every competent personal injury lawyer in the State. This case required Mr. Trachtenberg and Mr. Entrekin to be responsible for several dozen lead plaintiffs while simultaneously litigating against 33 hospitals. They have litigated this case actively for three years, have obtained class certification (wherein approximately 150 other lawyers around the state urged the Court of certify a class) and have obtained summary judgment on the class' behalf. 6. I am aware that this summary judgment provides a basis for an injunction that will prevent thousands of indigent Arizona patients on AHCCCS, including several of my own clients, from being forced to pay hospital liens that violate federal law. The Winters case provides long overdue relief to a large group of economically

80 disenfranchised people who lacked the resources and ability to litigate against powerful hospitals demanding their money. They faced the impossible choice of having all or most of their funds tied up while litigating the matter against the hospital or agreeing to release a portion of the proceeds to the hospitals in order to access their funds. 7. I've reviewed the time records for Levenbaum Trachtenberg, PLC and the Entrekin Law Firm inthe Winters case that spans 2011 throughz}l4, and I've reviewed the hourly rates charged by Geoffrey Trachtenberg, Esq. ($425lhr), Lance Entrekin, Esq., ($425lh ) and Justin Henry, Esq. ($ZSO hr), as well as paralegals Jane Hutchison, Eve Greenberg, Maribel Buford and Lisa Balbini (which range between $125ltr to $275ltu). It is my opinion, based upon my personal knowledge, experience and familiarity with legal services in the Phoenix metropolitan area, that these hourly rates are reasonable and appropriate for the work described, which produced or significantly contributed to the result described herein and/or was properly billable as a part of the normal litigation process. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. on: January Z{,}oto

81 EXHIBIT 6

82 Declaration of Richard Langerman 1. I am an attorney and I am licensed to practice law in the state of Arizona. I have been admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the 6t'', 8u', and 9'l' Circuits, ærd the United States District Court for Arizona. Additionally, I have been authorized to appear in the United States District Courts for the District of South Dakota, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Ohio, the District of New Jersey, the Northem District of Georgia, the Southern District of West Virginia, and the Northern District of Texas. 2. I have over 25 years of experience as a lawyer predominantly handling complex personal injury litigation. I have been involved in over 25 trials. I am a past president of the Arizona Association for Justice, the organization of Arizona personal injury attorneys. 3. I am farniliar with the experience, reputation, and abilities of Geoff Trachtenberg and Lance Entlekin. 4. I am familiar with the fachral and legal issues involved in WinÍers et al. v. Banner et al., Maricopa County No. CV Based on the factors set forlh in ER 1.5, it is my opinion that the reasonable hoully rate for the work done by Mr. Traclrtenberg and Mr. Entrekin in the Winters case (and the relatecl federal court proceeding) is in the range of $400 to $500 per hour. My opinion is based on the following factors: A. The Winters case involves complex legal and facftral issues and requirecl extremely skillful lawys r to identify the relevant federal regulatory history, marshall the factual record, and present the Iegal and factual arguments to the court.