Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Stephen Paul Forrest (SBN 006341) HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST 2 KELLY & KASPAREK, P.C. 3 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 4 Telephone: (602) 240-6670 5 Facsimile: (602) 240-6677 6 Dennis E. O'Connell BRYAN CAVE LLP 7 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 8 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2000 9 Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

Margaret B. LaBianca (No. 019169) 11 BRYAN CAVE LLP (No. 00145700) Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 12 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 13 Telephone: (602) 364-7000 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Lorraine Lopez-Moreno, Trina Carrasco, 16 and Jacqueline Cornwell 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Lorraine Lopez-Moreno, Trina Carrasco and Jacqueline Cornwell ("Defendants") submit this response to Plaintiff vs. Correctional Medical Services, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., LORRAINE LOPEZ-MORENO, TRINA CARRASCO AND JACQUELINE CORNWELL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Northland Insurance Company, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case No. CV-04-347-PHX-FJM

532110/0181280

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 130

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 1 of 10

1 Northland Insurance Company's ("Northland") Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of 2 Northland's Response and Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Effect of the 3 Guaranty Acts: 4 5 6 7 8 9 RESPONSE TO NORTHLAND'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Admit. Admit. Admit. Admit. Defendants admit Nurse Lorraine Lopez, Nurse Trina Carrasco and Nurse

10 Jacqueline Cornwell were employees of CMS. Defendants deny that the portion of the
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 record cited by Northland states that other medical personnel at Florence West were 12 employees of CMS. Further, other than the facts in this paragraph already admitted, the 13 paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant to the legal issues 14 raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no further admission or 15 denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Court deems a response 16 is necessary, Defendants deny the remaining assertions. 17 18 19 14. 15. 16. Admit. Admit. Other than the fact that CMS provided Valdez with medical care while at

20 Florence West, this paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant 21 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 22 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 23 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the remaining assertions. 24 17. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

25 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 26 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 27 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 28
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1302

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 2 of 10

1

18.

This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

2 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 3 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 4 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 5 19. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

6 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 7 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 8 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 9 20. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

10 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 12 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 13 21. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

14 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 15 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 16 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 17 22. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

18 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 19 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 20 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 21 23. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

22 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 23 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 24 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 25 24. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

26 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 27 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 28 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions.
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1303

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 3 of 10

1

25.

This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

2 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 3 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 4 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 5 26. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

6 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 7 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 8 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 9 27. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

10 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 12 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 13 28. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

14 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 15 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 16 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 17 29. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

18 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 19 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 20 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 21 30. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

22 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 23 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 24 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 25 31. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

26 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 27 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 28 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions.
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1304

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 4 of 10

1

32.

This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

2 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 3 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 4 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 5 33. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

6 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 7 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 8 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 9 34. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

10 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 12 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 13 35. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

14 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 15 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 16 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 17 36. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

18 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 19 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 20 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 21 37. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

22 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 23 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 24 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 25 38. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

26 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 27 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 28 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions.
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1305

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 5 of 10

1

39.

This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

2 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 3 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 4 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 5 40. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

6 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no 7 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 8 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 9 41. This paragraph is improper pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(a) because it is irrelevant

10 to the legal issues raised by Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, no
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 further admission or denial is required. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the 12 Court deems a response is necessary, Defendants deny the assertions. 13 14 42. 43. Admit. Defendants object to Northland's characterization that CMS rejected CSC's

15 tender of defense. Defendants respond that the documents speaks for themselves. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Admit. Admit. Admit. Admit. Admit. Admit. Admit. Defendants admit this paragraph but also note that the issues related to the

24 other third-party defendant (in addition to CMS) in the Valdez Action also were to be tried 25 separately. 26 27 28
532110

52. 53.

Admit. Admit.

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1306

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 6 of 10

1

54.

Deny in part and admit in part. The portion of the record cited by Northland

2 does not state the reasons why CSC and Northland entered into a "high-low" agreement with 3 Valdez and, therefore, Defendants deny Northland's statement that it entered into the "high4 low" agreement in order to ensure that neither of its insureds (the State and CSC) were 5 exposed to liability in excess of its policy limits. Defendants admit that CSC and Northland 6 entered into a "high-low" agreement with Valdez. 7 8 55. 56. Defendants admit that CSC was dismissed with prejudice from the Valdez suit. Defendants admit the State was an insured by Northland for any liability of

9 CSC. Defendants deny the remainder of the paragraph as the portion of the record cited by 10 Northland does not state what it claims in this paragraph. Further, Defendants object to this
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11 paragraph as calling for a legal conclusion. Accordingly, no further admission or denial is 12 required. 13 57. Deny in part and admit in part. Defendants admit CSC remained a party to the Defendants deny the remainder of the paragraph

14 cross-claims and third-party claims.

15 because the portion of the record cited by Northland does not state what it claims in this 16 paragraph. Further, Defendants object to this paragraph as calling for a legal conclusion. 17 Accordingly, no further admission or denial is required. 18 19 20 21 22 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. Admit. Defendants respond that the State's complaint speaks for itself. Admit. Admit. Deny in part and admit in part. Defendants admit only that Northland paid the

23 underlying $5 million Valdez judgment on behalf of the State, plus the additional $700,000 24 in accrued interest. Defendants deny the remainder of the paragraph because the portion of 25 the record cited by Northland does not state what it claims in this paragraph. Further, 26 Defendants object to this paragraph as calling for a legal conclusion. Accordingly, no 27 further admission or denial is required. 28
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1307

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 7 of 10

1

63.

Deny in part and admit in part. Defendants admit CSC voluntarily dismissed

2 its third party claim for indemnity against CMS. Defendants deny the remainder of the 3 paragraph because the portion of the record cited by Northland does not state what it claims 4 in this paragraph. Further, Defendants object to this paragraph as calling for a legal

5 conclusion. Accordingly, no further admission or denial is required. 6 64. This paragraph calls for a legal conclusion rather than stating a fact. If a response is required,

7 Accordingly, no further admission or denial is required.

8 Defendants deny that Northland asserts two claims that were assigned by CSC to Northland. 9 CSC did not assign any claims to Northland until December 5, 2005--after Northland filed 10 this action and asserted its claims against Defendants.
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

11

65.

Defendants respond that Northland's complaint speaks for itself.

Stating

12 further, Defendants deny that the portion of the record cited by Northland accurately reflects 13 its allegations. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. Defendants respond that Northland's complaint speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the Health Services Agreement speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the PHICO policy speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the PHICO policy speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the PHICO policy speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the Health Services Agreement speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the Health Services Agreement speaks for itself. Defendants deny that the contract cited in this paragraph imposed any

22 obligation on CMS. Further the document speaks for itself. 23 24 74. 75. Defendants respond that the document cited in this paragraph speaks for itself. Defendants respond that the document cited in this paragraph speaks for itself

25 and further deny that the document reflects any communication to CMS. 26 27 28
532110

76.

Defendants respond that the Health Services Agreement speaks for itself.

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1308

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 8 of 10

1

77.

Defendants respond that the Assignment Agreement speaks for itself, but

2 defendants deny that Northland brought any of the claims in this case on the basis of any 3 assignment of rights or advanced any claim herein other than as a subrogee.(see Complaint) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

78.

Defendants respond that the PHICO policy speaks for itself.

DATED December 22, 2005. HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST KELLY & KASPAREK, P.C. Stephen Paul Forrest (SBN 006341) 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3099 BRYAN CAVE LLP Dennis E. O'Connell 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 BRYAN CAVE LLP

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 COPY of the foregoing hand-delivered 20 this 22nd day of December 2005 to 21 The Honorable Frederick J. Martone

By

s/Margaret B. LaBianca Margaret B. LaBianca Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 Attorneys for Defendants

22 The foregoing is transmitted electronically to the Clerk's Office this 22nd day of December 2005 23 for filing and for transmittal to the following counsel 24 of record: 25 Karl Michael Tilleman, Esq. 26 Janice Kay Crawford, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 27 Collier Center 201 East Washington, Street, Suite 1600 28 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 1309

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 9 of 10

1

Attorneys for Plaintiff

2 Keith R. Ricker, Esq. RICKER & BUSTAMANTE, LLP 3 4530 East Shea Blvd., Suite 150 4 Phoenix, Arizona 85028 Attorneys for Defendants Dimaano and Figueroa 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bryan Cave LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 (602) 364-7000

s/Tracy Strachan

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
532110

Case 2:04-cv-00347-FJM

Document 13010 Filed 12/22/2005

Page 10 of 10