UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

Similar documents
Case 2:18-cv SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 03/12/18 PageID.209 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 3:15-cv RGJ-KLH Document 38 Filed 11/25/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 257 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

Case 2:16-cv MAT Document 10 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY. Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (hereinafter FedEx Ground ), by and

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :15 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017

I. ANSWER. COMES NOW Defendant IMPULSE MEDIA GROUP, INC. in the above-captioned

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/05/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/05/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASE NO.: 1:15-CV LCB-LPA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 4:15-cv DPM Document 25 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 12

Case 2:13-cv BJR Document 12 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :32 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 164 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2018

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. For its answer to the Complaint, Defendants James Allen Diamonds, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case3:13-cv SI Document11 Filed03/26/13 Page1 of 17

NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Case 3:08-cv CRB Document 1 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING. No SEA

Case 4:17-cv PJH Document 61 Filed 02/28/18 Page 1 of 33

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/07/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/07/2015

Case 2:16-cv JCC Document 9 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:15-cv DBP Document 26 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 20

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 35 Filed: 09/13/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:130

PlainSite. Legal Document. Georgia Northern District Court Case No. 1:10-cv D. H. Pace Company, Inc. v. Stephens et al.

Case 3:16-cv DPJ-FKB Document 9 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER

Case 2:12-cv TSZ Document 21 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 5 The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio Court of Common Pleas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION. Case No. 3:18-CV FDW-DSC

Case 1:12-cv DJC Document 36 Filed 09/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:14-cv CMH-TRJ Document 14 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID# 83

Case5:09-cv JW Document106 Filed04/22/10 Page1 of 9

Case 2:12-cv MSD-TEM Document 4 Filed 12/26/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 25

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/17/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/17/2014

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 20 Filed: 04/11/11 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:217

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

thejasminebrand.com thejasminebrand.com

Case 1:17-cv LAP Document 88 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION

Case 1:13-cv NMG Document 25 Filed 01/27/14 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1294 v.

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANTS PINE TREE HOMES, LLC AND SANTIAGO JOHN JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA RULE 5.2 CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/22/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/22/2016. Exhibit D {N

Case 1:17-cv DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2017 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/19/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 135 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/19/2012

Case 1:06-cv DFH-TAB Document 11 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 24

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/ :54 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 148 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2015

Case 3:16-cv REP Document 24 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 447

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/15/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/15/2016

Case 8:13-cv JSM-AEP Document 17 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case: 4:17-cv AGF Doc. #: 1 Filed: 01/23/17 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015

FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/23/ :02 PM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NADEL IONA BARRETT, I. INTRODUCTION

Case 1:12-cv DLC Document 11 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:14-cv JCC-IDD Document 7 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 39

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 8 Filed 09/25/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 1:10-CV ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv KBF Document 16 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:16-cv LGS Document 21 Filed 04/11/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM BUSINESS DISPUTE

Case: 3:18-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1

Case 4:14-cv BRW Document 25 Filed 09/08/14 Page 1 of 10

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

8:18-cv Doc # 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page 1 of 12 - Page ID # 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 31 Filed: 03/09/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:165

Case 2:15-cv RSM Document 1 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 44

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/11/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 85 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/11/2017

Case Doc 19 Filed 06/01/16 Entered 06/01/16 14:19:45 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/10/2010. Plaintiffs,

HUSHHUSH ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

Kanter v. California Administrative Office of the Courts Doc. 10 Case 3:07-cv MJJ Document 10 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION. Plaintiff, Defendant.

Transcription:

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.00 Page of Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. Steven M. Cady WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Tel.: 0-- scady@wc.com Maren R. Norton 00 University Street, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 0 Tel.: 0--000 maren.norton@stoel.com Attorneys for Defendants Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr. 0 CYNTHIA HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA Plaintiff, CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC and COORDINATED CARE CORPORATION, Defendants. No. :-CV-000-SMJ DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 Defendants Centene Management Company, LLC ( CMC ) and Coordinated Care Corporation ( Coordinated Care ) (collectively Defendants ), by undersigned counsel, hereby submit their Answer to Plaintiff s Third Amended Complaint ( Complaint ) in this action. In response to the specific, numbered paragraphs of the Complaint, Defendants respond as follows:. Defendants admit that Ms. Harvey bought an Ambetter health insurance policy from Coordinated Care, which policy went into effect on January, 0. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint and therefore deny them.. Defendants admit that CMC is a limited liability company organized under Wisconsin law with its principal place of business in Missouri, and that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centene Corporation. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants admit that Coordinated Care is a corporation organized under Indiana law; it is licensed to sell health insurance in the State of Washington; and it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Centene Corporation. Defendants deny the COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, except as to the last sentence; the website referenced in the last sentence speaks for itself.. Paragraph of the Complaint states a legal conclusion as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter.. Paragraph of the Complaint states a legal conclusion as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that venue is proper in this judicial district.. Paragraph of the Complaint states a legal conclusion as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that the requested relief is available in this case.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that Centene Corporation s financial statements speak for themselves.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph of the Complaint, and state that they lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence of Paragraph of the Complaint and therefore deny those allegations.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that consent order speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that consent order speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that consent order speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the press release speaks for itself. 0. In response to Paragraph 0 of the Complaint, Defendants state that letter speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the uncited materials referenced speak for themselves. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, except that Defendants admit that the government pays certain subsidies to insurers.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph, except that Defendants state that the websites referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statutes, regulations and websites referenced speaks for themselves. 0. In response to Paragraph 0 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statute referenced in the first sentences speaks for itself, and the definitions referenced in the second and third sentences do not require a response. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statute referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statute referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statutes and regulations referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the regulation referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the ACA speaks for itself.. Paragraph of the Complaint states a legal conclusion as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants admit that certain states have laws prohibiting deceptive marketing.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the regulations referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the regulation referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the regulations referenced speak for themselves. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 0. In response to Paragraph 0 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statues and regulation referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the statutes referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the website referenced speaks for itself.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 0. In response to Paragraph 0 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves.. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph of the Complaint, and state that the allegations in the unnamed lawsuit referenced in the second sentence of Paragraph of the Complaint speak for themselves.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, and therefore deny them.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves. Defendants deny the allegations in the last sentence of Paragraph. To the extent that other allegations in Paragraph need to be addressed, they are denied.. Defendants deny the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph. Defendants state that the medical records and coverage materials referenced in the remaining sentences of Paragraph speak for themselves.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the medical records and appeal materials referenced speak for themselves. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint and submit that the allegations regarding Superior Health are irrelevant to this action and should be stricken.. Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, and therefore deny them.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Paragraph 0 of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page 0 of 0. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint contains class allegations as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that COMPLAINT - 0 No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.00 Page of 0 certification of a class is appropriate in this matter and deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants repeat and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs through as if set forth fully here.. Paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, except as to the allegation that Ms. Harvey purchased a health insurance policy from Coordinated Care.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves. 0. In response to Paragraph 0 of the Complaint, Defendants state that the materials referenced speak for themselves.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. In response to Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendants repeat and incorporate their responses to Paragraphs through as if set forth fully here.. Paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Paragraph of the Complaint states legal conclusions as to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. 0. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 0 of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint.. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint. In response to the lettered paragraphs of the Prayer for Relief in the Complaint, Defendants respond as follows: COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 A. In response to Paragraph A of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. B. In response to Paragraph B of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. C. In response to Paragraph C of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. D. In response to Paragraph D of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. E. In response to Paragraph E of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks a declaration and an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. F. In response to Paragraph F of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks an order, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. G. In response to Paragraph G of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks relief, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any such relief. ALL ALLEGATIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED ABOVE ARE HERE AND NOW DENIED. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants do not assume the burden of proof with respect to those matters on which, pursuant to law, Plaintiff bears the burden. Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:. The Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.. Certain of Plaintiffs claims and damages theories are barred by the filed-rate doctrine.. The Complaint is barred because Defendants fulfilled their contractual obligations to Plaintiff.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff s request for relief has been satisfied.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff suffered no injury caused by Defendants.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff failed to plead her claims with the particularity required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused by failures to engage with and respond to Defendants regarding Plaintiff s health care needs in a timely manner. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused by failures to engage in the contractually required grievance and appeal process in a timely manner.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff s damages, if any, were caused by failures to submit adequate documentation to support coverage of the desired health care approach in a timely manner. 0. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff cannot recover for breach of contract because Plaintiff materially breached the contract by submitting false or misleading information.. The Complaint is barred because Plaintiff s requested relief is against public policy.. The Complaint is barred because Defendants conduct was not the proximate or legal cause of Plaintiff s alleged injury.. The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.. The Complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of estoppel, unclean hands, waiver, and other related equitable doctrines.. Plaintiff s claims against CMC should be dismissed because the health insurance policy at issue is with Coordinated Care.. This case is not amenable to treatment as a class action. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over CMC because it does not have sufficient contacts with the State of Washington to be subject to general jurisdiction and had no direct involvement in the alleged conduct at issue.. Defendants presently have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to whether there may be other, as yet unstated, defenses available to them, and therefore expressly: (a) reserve the right to amend or supplement their Answer, defenses, and all other pleadings; and (b) reserve the right to assert any and all additional defenses under any applicable law in the event that discovery indicates such defenses would be appropriate. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment as follows:. Judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on all claims pleaded by Plaintiff; and. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper, including, without limitation, reasonable costs incurred by Defendants in defending this action. COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 Dated: December, 0 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Maren R. Norton Maren R. Norton, WSBA 00 University Street, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 0 Tel.: 0--000 maren.norton@stoel.com Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. (admitted Pro Hac Vice) Steven M. Cady (admitted Pro Hac Vice) WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 000 Tel.: 0-- Fax: 0--0 scady@wc.com Attorneys for Defendants COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000

Case :-cv-000-smj ECF No. filed // PageID.0 Page of 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December, 0, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which in turn automatically sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to all parties in the case who are registered users of the CM/ECF system. The Notice of Electronic Filing for the foregoing specifically identifies recipients of electronic notice. /s/ Maren R. Norton Maren R. Norton 00 University Street, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 0 Tel.: 0--000 maren.norton@stoel.com COMPLAINT - No. :-CV-000-SMJ 00 University Street, Suite 00, Seattle, WA 0 Telephone 0..000. 000-0000