t?r?


l-

CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN, MCBRIDE PEABODY

RICHARD D. CARROLL (SBN 116913)
JENNIFER A. COONEY (SBN 218815)
111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor
Post Of?ce Box 22636

Long Beach, California 90801-5636

Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 Facsimile No. (562) 432-8785

Attorneys for Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION

FILED.

Superior Court of California
County of Les Angolcs

AUG 1 3 2018
bllt?l?l'l K. Lurm'. mccume miner/Clerk

By W111 1.00pm} AI.

on: 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FABIAN RONISKY,
Plaintiff,
VS.

PROVIDENCE SAINT HEALTH
CENTER, a corporation; STANTON GERALD
AXLINE, an individual; MORRIS TOBIAS
GRABIE, an individual; DANIEL FRANC, an
individual; SANJEEV K. SETH, an individual;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

 

CASE NO.: BC599928

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION

OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, SECTION 

DECLARATION OF JENNIFER A.
COONEY IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Date: 11/26/18
Time: 8:30 am.
Dept: 48

ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
JUDGE: ALLEN WHITE
DEPARTMENT: 48

Complaint Filed: 11/0312015
First Amended: 02/22/2017
Trial Date: 09/10/2018

TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant, EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, hereby

applies to this Court in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section

for a determination that the settlement with plaintiff, FABIAN RONISKY, as

described below was entered into in good faith.



.Docx

1

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

9103The basis and terms of the settlement is that plaintiff 'has agreed to a dismissal with
prejudice and to a full release of defendant, EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, in the action
entitled Ronisky v. Providence Health System, et al., Case No. BC599928, in exchange for One
Million Dollars which represents a full and complete settlement of plaintiff?s
claims and all future claims. The terms of the settlement, as set forth above, are a fair and
reasonable consideration for the compromise, release, and waiver of claims stated therein. 

This Application is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the
facts stated in the attached Declaration of Jennifer A. Co'oney, which is incorporated herein by

this reference.

DATED: June?, 2018 CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, RANZEN,
MCBRIDE ABODY

By: .
RICHARD D. OLL
JENNIFER A. ONEY

Attorneys for Defendant
EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION

 

.Docx . 2

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 





ooqoxmlb

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION

 

This is a medical malpractice actiOn repackaged with a products liability theory. Plaintiff
Fabian Ronisky added EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION as a defendant to this action,
otherwise asserting claims of medical malpractice against physicians and a hospital, alleging:
?Defendant medical doctors negligently failed to diagnose and/or treat Plaintiff for encephalitis.
In addition, the defective electronic health record system and products made by Defendants Epic
Systems Corporation and Sunquest Information Systems, Inc., failed to process a critical test for
plaintiff, resulting in a signi?cant delay.?

Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION has agreed to pay plaintiff One Million
Dollars in consideration for its dismissal from the action with prejudice, and a

full release from plaintiff. Further, because the settlement is not disproportionately low, the court

need not consider whether Defendant has other assets.

Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION moves this Court for an Order
determining that the settlement between plaintiff and the moving party as outlined more fully
below meets the standard Of good faith as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and
877.6, and the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Associates
(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

Plaintiff Fabian Ronisky initially sued, and settled with health care providers: Stanton
Axline, M.D., Morris. Grabie, M.D., and hospital Providence St. John?s Health Center, on the
basis'that the providers failed to comply with the standard of care for treating his viral
meningitis, caused by herpes simplex virus. In short, plaintiff went to the emergency room at
Providence St. John's Health Center in Malibu on March 2, 2015, complaining of headaches,
fever, and other Plaintiff claims that he subsequently suffered brain damage when
the hOSpital and its doctors failed to timely administer Acyclovir, a drug that plaintiff says would

have avoided further injury. Plaintiff also claims that a ?aw in the Epic medical records

E:\l 05\l385-2 3

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

 

120%? Shim

Llsoftware system at St. John?s caused a delay in a lab test order being completed, which he says
caused his injuries.
TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT

Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION hereby requests that this court, in
accordance with the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, enter an
Order determining that the settlement described herein was entered into in good faith.

(1) SETTLING PARTIES:

The parties to this settlement are plaintiff, FABIAN RONISKY, and defendant EPIC
SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

(2) TERMS:

The settling defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION has agreed to pay plaintiff
$1,000,000.00 in consideration for its dismissal from the action with prejudice, and a full release
from plaintiff.

(3) AMOUNT:

In consideration of the dismissal, with prejudice of defendant EPIC SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, has agreed to pay plaintiff the sum of $1,000,000.00. 1
IV. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 authorizes the court to enter a
determination that the settling parties have entered into settlement in good faith. That provision

provides in pertinent part as follows:

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that
two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors
on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the
issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by
the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged
tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the
manner provided in subdivision of Section 
The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be
determined by the court on the basis of af?davits
served with the notice of hearing, and any counter
af?davits filed in response, or the court may, in its
discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.

4

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 



determination by the court that the
settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other
joint tortfeasor or co?obligor for equitable comparative
contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based
on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

As demonstrated more fully below, the settlement between plaintiff and defendant is in
good faith, therefore entitling the defendant to the protections afforded by California Code of
Civil Procedure section 877.6 as set forth above.

V. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A FINDING THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS

MADE IN GOOD FAITH

?Good faith? depends upon what the settling parties knew about liability at the time of
the settlement, not evidence that might be acquired later. (Tecthilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde 
Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) In ech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Associates, the
California Supreme Court extensively and authoritatively discussed the factors to be considered
in determining whether a settlement is made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt court concluded that,
in assessing the ?good faith? of a settlement, the ultimate determinate of good faith is whether
the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of the
settlement would estimate the settlor?s liability to be. (Id. at 499-500). Accordingly, the party
opposing the good faith of the settlement has the burden of establishing that ?the settlement is so
far ?out of the ball park? to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.? (Ibid)

In articulating. this standard, the court speci?cally acknowledged that this ?reasonable
range? test leaves ?substantial latitude to the parties and to the discretion of the trial court in
determining the issue, in consonanc?e with the generalized valuation criteria of the personal injury
bar, insurance claims departments, pretrial settlement courts and the judge?s personal experience
and Iof experts in the ?eld.? (E. at 500). In that regard, the court understood ?that a settlor
?should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial.? (Id. at 499; see
also Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 881-882).

In Tech-Bill; the Supreme Court held that:

5

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

91-877'81-?The intent and policies underlying section 877.6
require that a number of factors be taken into account
including a rough approximation of plaintiff?s total
recovery and the settlor?s proportionate liability, the
amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement
proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a
settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable in a trial. Other relevant
considerations include the ?nancial conditions and
insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as
the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct
aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.
(Citations omitted) Finally, practical considerations
obviously require that the evaluation be made on the
basis of information available at the time of settlement.
(Tech-Bill, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde Associates,
supra, 38 Cal.3d at 

The court in ech-Bilt speci?cally acknowledged that there can be a ?nding of good faith
even where the sums paid in settlement are grossly disproportionate to the sums prayed for in the
complaint, or where the potential liability of the defendant is small when compared with an
evaluation of the plaintiff?s total recovery potential. (Tech-Bib, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde 
Associates, supra, 48 Cal.3d at 501).

As will be discussed in more detail below, the settlement agreement between plaintiff
FABIAN RONISKY and defendant, EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, meets the prima facie
requirements of a good faith settlement as set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde 
Associates, supra, and its progeny.

A. The Settlement Was Reached in Good Faith Based on the Information Available to

the Parties at the Time of the Settlement A

In the present case, an analysis of plaintiff?s theories of liability and defendant?s defense
shows that the settlement between plaintiff and defendant was made in good faith. Considering
the terms of the settlement, the fact that a settling defendant should pay less than its potential
share of liability, and the fact the other defendants face signi?cant liability, it is respectfully
submitted that the amount paid by EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, is within the ballpark and

the present settlement deserves the approval of this court.

E:\l Door: 6

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

 





$3103" 

28


B. A Rough Approximation Of Plaintiff?s Total Recovery

The ?rst central damage category in this matter is general damages. Pursuant to MICRA,
plaintiffs general damages are capped at $250,000.00 for the medical negligence claim.

Regarding special damages, the defense has valued plaintiff 5 future loss of earnings in
the range of $5 million to $7 million. Plaintiff values his loss of earnings at $15 million.

Importantly, ?the plaintiffs claim for damages are not determinative in ?nding good
the court is called upon to make a ?rough approximation? of what the plaintiff
would actually recover. (Emphasis Added.) West v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th
1625, 1636. As stated by the court in Horton v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 727, 735,
?in determining a settling defendant?s equitable share of liability, the judge does not look to the
plaintiff?s claim for damages; rather the judge tries to determine a rough approximation of
what the plaintiff would actually recover if the case should go to trial.? (Emphasis Added.)
Id.

Here, defendant?s settlement is proportionate to the potential recovery that plaintiff may
have at trial, and should not be measured against an exaggerated plaintiffs expert?s economic
analysis. Thus, taking into account the signi?cant potential liability that the co-defendants? face,
as discussed below, only one conclusion can be reached. EPIC SYSTEMS 
settlement is in good faith.

C. The Settlement Re?ects A Reasonable Estimate of Defendant?s Share of Liability

Applying the Tech-Bill factors, the evidence demonstrates that defendants? settlement'of
this matter is not ?grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person? would estimate
defendant?s potential liability to be in this case. The settlement amount between plaintiff and
defendant was reached based on economic and business considerations and evaluation of
defendant?s share of liability. Therefore, the settlement of $1 million is more than a sufficient
representation defendant?s potential exposure in this case.

After EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION settles out of this matter, there still remain two
other defendants who have potential liability, and two co defendant physicians that have also

settled with plaintiff for their-policy limits and the hospital?s prior settlement as well.

7

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

7 777777777.

 

 

VI. OTHER TECH-BILT FACTORS THAT SUPPORT A FINDING OF GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT

A. The Allocation of Settlement Proceeds Among Plaintiff

The settlement is $1,000,000.00 to release all claims. Here, because the allocation of
defendant EPIC SYSTEMS settlement is going to plaintiff, this element is
irrelevant.

B. The Financial Condition and Insurance Policy Limits of Settling Defendant

and Non Settling Defendants

Considering Defendant is paying more than or equal to its potential liability at trial,
whether it has any resources to pay more is irrelevant. In L. C. Rudd Son v. Superior Court
(1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 742, the Court of Appeal agreed that the ?nancial condition of the
settling party is irrelevant ?because the settlement was not ?disproportionately low.?? (Id. at 749).
Following Tech-Bilt, supra, other relevant considerations include the insurance policy limits of
settling defendants. Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.

C0 defendant Dr. Axline also settled with plaintiff for approximately $2 million, and co
defendant Dr. Grabie settled with plaintiff for approximately $1 million. The co defendant
hospital settled with plaintiff for $4.5 million. Additionally, the remaining co-defendant
physicians also have liability coverage. Sanjeev K. Seth, MD. is insured for $1 million dollars,
and Daniel Franc, MD. is also insured for $1 million dollars.

Therefore, there is more than suf?cient coverage assuming the maximum present cash
value of plaintiff S?damages, especially in light of the totality of the settlements with plaintiff.

C. The Settlement Was Reached After Arms-Length Negotiations By The Settling

Parties -

The settlement agreement was made with honest and lawful intent and does not contain
any terms, conditions or promises, either intended or implied. There was no collusion, fraud, or
tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of the remaining defendant. There was no
agreement that. Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION would offer to testify either for or
against plaintiff, FABIAN RONISKY. There was also no agreement made for plaintiff to litigate

. 8

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

 



00 ?4 J3 U0 




this matter against the remaining defendant for any more or less than any threshold ?gure.
VII. PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS SETTLEMENTS

?It hardly seems necessary to point out that there is an overriding public interest in
settling and quieting litigation.? (Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp. (9th Cir. 1976) 529 F.2d 943,
950.) Settlement with Defendants assures plaintiff $7,500,000 in recovery without facing the
risk of a defense verdict at trial. Non-settling defendants get the? bene?t of an offset. (Code of
Civil Procedure section 877.)

In City of Orange v. San Diego County Employees Ref. Ass ?n (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 45,
the Court of Appeal voiced a similar sentiment recognizing the ?well-established public policy in
this state that settlements of litigation are favored and should be encouraged.? (Id. at 55.)

Going on, the Court explained the important interests promoted by the policy:

?[S]ettlement agreements ?are highly favored as
productive of peace and good will in the community,?
as well as ?reducing the expense and persistency of
litigation.? [Citation] The need for settlements is
greater than ever before. ?Without them our system of
civil adjudication would quickly break down.?
ECitation.]? (Neory v. Regents of University of
California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 277, superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in In re Rashad H.
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 379.) (Ibid.; unof?cial
citations omitted.)

In addition to the above, the Neary Court stated: ?Requiring parties to continue to litigate
a matter over which there is no longer a real dispute ?is wasteful of the resources of the
judiciary.?? (Neary, supra, 3 Cal.4th at 277.) The Neary Court went on to acknowledge that
settlement conserves judicial resources, relieves parties of the emotional and ?nancial burdens
and risks of further litigation, and permits parties to reconcile: (Id. at 278.)

The seminal opinion of ech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d
488 provides a comprehensive overview of the history of the California statutes governing
settlements, including Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6,1 as well as the legislative
policy and intent of promoting settlement.

The Tech-Bil: Court stated: ?The major goals of the 1957 tort contribution legislation

are, ?rst, equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and second, encouragement of

EU .Docx 9

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

81.83.5512?settlements.? (Id. at 494; quoting River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court (1972) 26
Cal.App.3d 986, 993.)

Section 877, included as part of the tort contribution legislation, speci?cally addresses the
effect of the release or settlement of one of several joint tortfeasors. Section 877 states in

pertinent part:

Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or-
a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is
given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or
more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for
the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors
mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the
following effect: .

It shall not discharge any other such party from
liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce
the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by
the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the
amount of the consideration paid for it whichever is the
greater.

It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from
all liability for any contribution to any other parties.

Shortly after the enactment of section 877, the California Supreme Court decided the case
of American Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578. There, the Court held
that section 877 should apply to discharge a settling tortfeasor from claims for partial or
comparative indemnity. (Id. at 604.) Two years later, in 1980, the Legislature responded to
American by enacting section 877.6, which provides that settlement bars claims for
partial or comparative indemnity, as well as for contribution. (Civ. Proc. Code This
statue also provides guidance relative to the court?s determination of good faith of a settlement in
subdivisions and i

The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be
determined by the court on the basis of af?davits served
with the notice of hearing, and any counter af?davits
?led in reSponse, or the court may, in its discretion,
receive other evidence at the hearing.

A determination by the court that the settlement was
made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or
co-obligor from any further claims against the settling
tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative
contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based
on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have
the burden of proof on that issue.

E:\l osu 1 .Docx 10

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 


0  ,0

1 EPIC SYSTEMS settlement is presumptively in good faith and in

.

accordance with the public policy in favor of settlements.


CONCLUSION

 

The present settlement has been made in good faith and meets the requirements set forth
in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyd Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. Accordingly, EPIC
SYSTEMS CORPORATION respectfully requests that the Court grant this Application for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section

877.6.



DATED: JuneZL, 2018 CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN,

1 0 MCBRIDE ABODY

1; 

13 . .
Attorneys for -
14 EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION

 

 

3183? 31388

28

1 1

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

 



13DECLARATION OF JENNIFER A. COONEY

1, Jennifer A. Cooney, declare and state as follows:

1. i I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of
California, and I am a partner in the law ?rm of Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McBride 
Peabody, attorney of record for defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, in the above?
captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained herein, and if called as a
witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. Plaintiff ?led the original Complaint on November 3, 2015. He ?led the First
Amended Complaint on February 22, 2017 and added EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION as a
DOE defendant.

3. Plaintiff Fabian Ronisky initially sued, and settled with health care providers:

Stanton Axline, M.D., Morris Grabie, M.D., and hOSpital Providence St. John?s Health Center,

on the basis that the providers failed to comply with the standard of care for treating his viral

meningitis, caused by herpes simplex Virus. In short, plaintiff went to the emergency room at
Providence St. John's Health Center in Malibu on March 2, 2015, complaining of headaches,
fever, and other Plaintiff claims that he subsequently suffered brain damage when
the hospital and its doctors failed to timely administer Acyclovir, a drug that plaintiff says would
have avoided further injury. Plaintiff also claims that a ?aw in the Epic medical records
software system at St. John?s caused a delay in a lab test order being completed, which he says
caused his injuries.

4. Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION has agreed to pay plaintiff One
Million Dollars in consideration for its dismissal from the action with prejudice,
and a full release from plaintiff. Further, because the settlement is not disproportionately low, the
court need not consider whether Defendant has other assets.

5. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION now respectfully requests that this Court find
that the settlement between plaintiff and defendant, was entered into in good faith under the

relevant section of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 and pursuant to the

 

considerations discussed in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

E:\l 12

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

1 6. The evidence demonstrates that defendant?s agreement to pay plaintiff $1 million

2 for full and complete settlement of this matter as to Defendant EPIC SYSTEMS

3 CORPORATION, is not ?grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person? would estimate

4 defendant?s potential liability to be in this case. The settlement amount between plaintiff and

5 defendant, was reached based on economic and business considerations, and evaluation of
6 defendant?s share of liability.

7 7. After defendant EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION settles out of this matter,

8 there still remains two other defendants who have potential liability. Sanjeev K. Seth, MD. is
9 insured for $1 million dollars. Daniel Franc, MD. is also insured for $1 million dollars and there

10 is more than enough insurance coverage for this case. Further, co defendant Dr. Axline settled

11 his share of the case with plaintiff for $2 million and co defendant Dr. Grabie settled his share of

12 the case for $1 million. The co defendant hospital settled with plaintiff for $4.5 million.

13 8. The settlement agreement was made with honest and lawful intent and does not

14 contain any terms, conditions or promises, either intended or implied. There was no collusion,
15 fraud, or tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of the remaining defendants. There are no
16 terms other than those as set forth in the Application, Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
17 Notice of settlement and this declaration.

18 9. Based on the foregoing, I believe that the terms of the settlement are a fair and
19 reasonable consideration for the compromise, release and dismissal as agreed to by the parties.

20 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

21 foregoing is true and correct.

22 Executed on June 2L 2018, in Long Be lifomia.

23

24 AKCOO 
25

 

26
27
Cm 28

.Docx - 13

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

 

 

 

 



L11 

party to the within action. My business address is Post Of?ce Box 22636, Long Beach,
CA 90801-563 6. On June 22, 2018, I served a true and correct copy of the following document
APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION DECLARATION OF JENNIFER A.
COONEY IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the list of interested parties attached hereto:



United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

14

deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, with

express service carrier at 111 West Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California.

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18

By United States Certi?ed Mail, Return? Receipt Requested (CCP ??1013a, et seg.): I
enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package to each addressee. I placed
the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am
readily familiar with the ?rm?s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for
mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is

postage ?Jlly prepaid.

By Overnight Delivery/Express Mail (CCP et seq.): I enclosed said
document(s) in a sealed envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier to
each addressee. I placed the envelope or package, delivery fees paid for, for collection
and overnight delivery at an of?ce or at a regularly utilized drop box maintained by the

By Fax. Transmission (CRC 2.306): Based on a written agreement of the parties to
accept service by fax transmission, I faxed said document(s) to each addressee's fax
number. The facsimile machine that I utilized, (562) 432?8785, complied with California
Rules of Court, Rule and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to
Rule I caused the machine to print a record of the transmission, a copy of
which is attached to the original of this proof of service.

By Electronic Transmission: Via e-mail to the address shown above.

I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the

Executed on June 22, 2018, at Long Beac

  

 

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT



 

 

SIGEJSIJEB



Proof of Service
Ronisky v. Providence, etc, 61? 611., Case No. BC599928

Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.

Graham Lambert Esq

Haffner Law. C.

445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Facsimile: (213) 514- 5682
ihh@haftherlawvers.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Raymond L. Blessey, Esq.

Kevin L. Metros, Esq. 

Reback, McAndrews, Blessey, LLP

1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 450

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Facsimile: (310) 297-9800
rblessey@rmblawyer.com

Attorneys for Defendant Sanjeev K. Seth, M.D.

 

Christopher P. Wend, Esq.

Nicoli Z. Richardson, Esq.

La Follette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fesler Ames
865 South Figueroa Street, 32nd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017- 5431

Facsimile: (213) 426-3650

cwend 

nrichardson@lidfa.com

Attorneys for Defendant Daniel Franc, M.D.

E:\l 15

105-1385-20

105-1385-20

105-1385-20

 

 

 

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT