seiu-uhw's lawsuit against duane dauner, greg adams and the california hospital ass'n, nov. 24, 2015

8/20/2019 SEIU-UHW's Lawsuit against Duane Dauner, Greg Adams and the California Hospital Ass'n, Nov. 24, 2015

1/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

Profeuional

Cofpontion

a V i n ^ pHkmy,SU M 200


2/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER&

ROSENFELD

ProftssioMl CoiporURm

Mtfhi

VfRi«e

Pvfcwiy. Snile IM

acdhCUUftnlaMJOl

I. INTRODUCTION

1.

This is a

case to

remedy the corrupt

acts

of Defendant

C. Duane

Dauner ( Dauner ) an

his enablers. The conduct alleged herein arises from Defendant Dauner's decision to sell his v

powers

as Co-chair of the Board of Directors

for

Nominal

Defendant

Caring

for

Califomians,

LLC ( CFC ) in exchange for

favors

that

advance

his own — but not CFC's — interests.

2.

CFC is

a

non-profit organization dedicated

to

increasing funding

for Medi-Cal

and

thereby ensuring that millions of low income and disabled Califomians have

access

to high

quality health

care.

CFC invested heavily in realizing this goal by pursuing a

statewide ballot

t

would rely on revenue generated from he personal income taxes of Califomia's wealthiest

individuals, and then channeling some

of

the revenue that is generated from hose taxes to Med

Cal.

3. As Co-Chair and a

Director

of CFC, Dauner owes CFC a fiduciary duty of loyalty, goo

faith, honesty and candor.

Dauner

also serves as the President and

Chief

Executive

Officer

( CEO ) of the

Califomia Hospital

Association

( CHA ).

4. As will be set forth herein. Defendant Daimer and his co-defendants breached each and

every one

of

those

duties

when they

agreed

to shut

down

the

operations of

CFC.

Specifically,

coalition of employers and labor organizations (the ABC

Coalition ),

with political interests th

do not align with CFC, threatened to initiate ballot measures that

would

reign in the pay of

hospital executives, cap the prices of medical services charged

by

hospitals, and require hospit

to provide a certain level of charity care.

5. Because these

ballot

measures

were

direct

threats

to

Davmer's other

company, CHA,

Dauner secretly met with the ABC Coalition and agreed to exchange his power to veto any

proposed

CFC

action

i f

the

ABC

Coalition

dropped their

ballot initiatives.

In

effect,

Dauner

so

out

CFC

and the dream of

a fully

funded

Medi-Cal

program

for

higher hospital executive pay a

profits.

6. Plaintiff Service Employees Intemational Union, United Healthcare

Workers

West

( UHW ) is a

member of

the CFC and

hereby

brings suit on its own behalf and

derivatively

on

behalf

of CFC

for

Dauner's breach of fiduciary

duty

and related causes of

action.

2

COMPLAINT


3/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

vai i i* Fwwwy.

U l *

30D

II .

PARTIES

7. Defendant C. Duane

Dauner, an

individual,

is the

Co-Chair

and a Director of CFC. He

also

the President and

CEO of CHA

and the Califomia

Association of

Hospitals and

Health

Systems

( CAHHS ). Upon information and belief,

he maintains

residencies

in

Sacramento

an

Palm Springs,

Califomia.

8. Defendant Gregory

A .

Adams

( Adams ),

an individual, is

a Director and

Treasurer

of

CFC. In addition. Defendant

Adams

is

an

officer and

the Chair

of

the

CHA and CAHHS Boar

of Directors. Defendant Adams is also the

Group

President of

Kaiser

Permanente. Upon

information and belief,

he

is a resident of

Altadena,

California.

9.

Defendant Mark

R.

Laret ( Laret ), an individual, is a Director of CFC. In addition.

Defendant

Laret is an officer of

the

CHA

and

CAHSS Boards of Directors.

Defendant

Laret

is

also

the

CEO of the University o f Califomia Medical

Center, San

Francisco. Upon information

and belief,

he

is a resident of Marin, Califomia.

10.

Defendant James R. Holmes

( Holmes ), an

individual,

is a Director of CFC, In additio

to. Defendant

Holmes

is

an

officer and

the Chair-elect

of

the

CHA

and

CAHSS Boards of

Directors. Defendant Holmes is also the President and CEO of Redlands Commimity Hospital

Upon information and belief,

he

is a resident of Redlands, California.

11. Nominal Defendant Caring for Califomians, LLC

is

a Labor Management

Committee

established

pursuant

to

the Labor-Management Cooperation Act of

1978,

organized under

Califomia's

Nonprofit

Mutual Benefit Corporation

Law.

CFC's

headquarters

is

located

in

Sacramento, Califomia.

12. Plaintiff Service Employees Intemational Union, United Healthcare

Workers - West

is

labor organization that

for

all

imes

relevant

to

this

complaint was

a

member

of

CFC. UHW's

headquarters

is

located in

Oakland,

Califomia.

13.

UHW

is

ignorant

of the tme

names

and

capacities

of

the

defendants sued in

this

Complain

DOES

1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore

sue these

defendants by such fictitious

names

and

capacities.

UHW will

amend

this

Complaint

to

allege

those DOE defendants'

tme

names

and

capacities when

leamed.

UHW

alleges that

each

of

the

defendants named as

DOES was

in

som

3

COMPLAINT


4/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

Corpomion

MviM

Vi l lai

Partcny. Subc

300

• - • MMI

)ID)U7.|001

manner

responsible

for the acts and omissions alleged in

this

Complaint.

III . JUR ISDICTION AND VENU E

14. This Court has

jurisdiction

over this action pursuant to Article VI , section 4 of the

Califomia

Constitution and

section

1600 of the

Califomia

Code

of Civil

Procedure

( CCP ).

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants who engaged in conduct, and

who continue to

engage

in conduct, giving rise o the claims stated herein at locations within th

State of Califomia and Alameda County.

16.

Venue

is

proper in

this Court

pursuant to, among other provisions,

CCP

§

392(a),

beca

the injury occurred in

this

covinty and because

CFC's

primary

place ofbusiness is within

this

county.

IV . FACTS

A. TH E BR OKEN AND

SEVERELY UNDERFUNDED

MEDI-CAL SY STEM AND

CFC'S M ISSION TO FIX IT AND IMPROVE T HE HEALT HC ARE OF

MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS.

1. TH E MEDI-CAL PROB LEM.

17. Medi-Cal is Califomia's version of Medicaid, the

federal program

that provides health

to low income and disabled persons. Under the Affordable

Care

Act ( ACA ), the Medi-Cal

program

has expanded dramatically, and it will soon provide healthcare to three out of every t

Califomians.

18. Nearly

13 million Califomians —

mostly,

children,

seniors, and the

disabled —

are

enrolled in the Medi-Cal program and rely on it for their health coverage. Almost half of the

births

in

Califomia are

covered by

Medi-Cal, and one

in two

children

relies on Medi-Cal for

the

health coverage. Fifty-six percent of Medi-Cal recipients are female. And Medi-Cal pays for

services

covering two-thirds of Califomia's

nursing home

residents.

19. Yet, Medi-Cal is severely

underfimded.

Califomia ranks 49 out of iie 50 states in the

amount that

healthcare providers are reimbursed to provide Medi-Cal funded services. This

means providers,

such as hospitals and physicians, lose substantial amounts of money provid

care to Medi-Cal recipients. To

account

for this shortfall, these healthcare providers

charge

m

to privately

insured

people, which

drives

up healthcare and insurance costs for everyone

4

COMPLAINT


5/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

Prolononal Corpontloo

htotra Vai»»« PnfcMy, a« UO

(3iO)xn-iooi

including those who get their health insurance through their employers. The

insufficiency of

Califomia's Medi-Cal funding also results in

limited

access

to doctors and

healthcare services

those who depend on the Medi-Cal program for their health coverage.

20. The

insufficiency

of

Medi-Cal funding

poses

the

largest threat

to the

quality

of

healthca

for Califomians. Because Medi-Cal is

such

a poor payer, Medi-Cal beneficiaries are

systematically denied

adequate

and

timely care. Medi-Cal

beneficiaries

cannot

obtain the

care

that they need, when they need i t, because many doctors simply

cannot

afford or refuse to tak

new Medi-Cal patients.

21 . An

inadequately funded

Medi-Cal

program

also

inflates the

cost of

commercial insuran

by

forcing

consumers and their employers to subsidize the cost of

insuring

the Medi-Cal

population, and it forces hospitals to seek artificial operational and financial work-arounds to

spread

the burden

of

Medi-Cal losses across the hospital industry.

As

a result, hospitals

lose

billions of dollars

each

year.

2.

TH E

MEDI-CAL SOLUTION.

22.

On May 5,2014, in

an

effort to

address the

inadequacy of Medi-Cal funding, CHA

and

UHW entered into what has been hailed as a breakthrough agreement that created a

strategic

relationship

designed

to change the face

of

healthcare

in

Califomia and serve as a new natio

model

for how

employers and unions interact. êe

CHA Press Release, CA

Hospitals,

SEIU-

UHW Reach Agreement to Improve Healthcare, Create New Model of Labor Relations (May 6

2014).

23. CHA described its new partnership with UHW as unique because it committed C

and UHW to focus on a shared strategic vision of improving health and healthcare deliv

Califomia.... Ibid.

24. The centerpiece of the CHA-UHW partnership was the creation of

a

$ 100 million join

advocacy

conunittee to drive improvements to the healthcare delivery

system

that could not be

obtained through direct negotiation

between

employers and labor unions. This

would

be

accomplished

by

identifying new resources and financing approaches at the

federal

and

state

levels, including educational activities, legislative and regulatory efforts,

a

ballot initiative, or

. 5_

COMPLAINT


6/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2̂1

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROSENFELD

A

PrafasUutfl

Coipomioa

m vibf * taimy,

auiu

300

iiw4̂ C«» ndi*430l

(JIOIJJ'-IOOI

other strategies.

Id

25. The

joint

advocacy committee provided for in the CHA-UHW

partnership

took the

for

of CFC, established

pursuant

to the

Labor-Management

Cooperation Act of 1978, organized

under

Califomia's

Nonprofit

Mutual

Benefit

Corporation

Law

with

the

specific

and

primary

purpose to:

)

Function

as an

industry-wide Labor

Management

Cooperation

Committee, as permitted by the

federal

Labor Management

Cooperation Act of 1978 ( LMCA ), for the

purposes

of

jointiy

advocating on

behalf

of Califomia Hospital

Association

and

Service

Employees

Intemational

Union,

United Healthcare Workers

- West (the "Designators") for improved communication

between

representatives of

labor

and

management; providing healthcare

workers

and employers

with

opportunities

to study and

explore

new

and innovative

joint approaches

to

achieving organizational

effectiveness;

assisting healthcare workers

and

employers

in

solving problems of

mutual

concem

not susceptible to resolution

throu^

the

iadit ional collective bargaining

process; studying and

exploring ways of eliminating potential problems which reduce the

competitiveness and

inhibit

the economic development of the

healthcare industry

in Califomia; enhancing the involvement of

healthcare

workers

in

making

decisions that affect

their working

lives;

expanding and

improving working relationships

between

healthcare workers

and managers; and any other permissible

purposes

under the LMCA; and

Focus during the firsttwenty-four months after the date of

incorporation

on the

following

agenda: obtaining

full

Medi-Cal

fimdijig and

payments

to

hospitals

for services rendered to Medi

Cal beneficiaries to the

maximum

amount allowed

imder federal

law without

reliance

on a hospital fee, tax, or assessment program,

unless otherwise agreed by the Designators.

26. CHA and UHW

committed

to each

other

to

fund

CFC. In accordance

with

this

commitment, CHA agreed to

provide

$80

million

in

funding

to

CFC,

and UHW agreed to

pro

$20

million

in funding. To

date,

CHA and UHW have contributed half of

their

funding

obligations to CFC. CFC currently holds more than $7

million dollars

of UHW contributions

which

can only be

spent

by an action

taken

by the

Board

of

Directors

for

CFC.

B. THE

STURCTURE

AND OPERATION OF CFC

27. Per CF C's

Bylaws,

CFC has two "designators," CHA and UHW.

Botii

CHA and UHW

are authorized to act through

their

designated representatives. The designated representative f

CHA is

Defendant

Dauner, while the designated representative for UHW is the President of

UHW, David

Regan ("Regan").

6

COMPLAINT


7/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROSENFELD

kWM vnu^ PtAwsy Mu

TOO

Ckli'finfiMJOt

(910)1)7-1001

28.

The primary

authority of the

"designators,"

as set forth in Articles

III and IV ofthe

Bylaws,

is the

right

to appoint a certain

number

of

Directors

to the Board of Directors.

29.

CF C consists

of eight Directors.

As

per the Bylaws, the President of CHA, or

whoeve

his

or her successor

as

CEO

of

CHA,

is

designated

the

CHA

Co-Chair

of

CFC

by

virtue

ofhis

her

position. Likewise, the President of UHW,

or

his

or her

successor, is the UHW Co-Chair

CFC by

virtue

ofhis

or her

position.

30.

Three

of the

other

six directors

are appointed

by the President of CHA,

and

the remain

three are appointed by the President of UHW.

31. Because he has been CHA 's President and CEO at all timesrelevant to this Complain

Defendant

Dauner has

been

CHA 's Co-Chair and Director of CF C at all relevant

times.

32. The

other

CHA Directors

have

included

Defendants

Adams,

Laret,

and

Holmes

(collectively

with

Defendant

Daimer, the CHA Directors").

Defendants

Adams,

Laret,

and

Holmes are each officers of CH A and CAHHS and are subordinate to Defendant Dauner in

CHA and CAHHS

hierarchy.

33.

At

all relevant

times,

the UHW Co-Chair has been

Regan

by

virtue

ofhis position as

UHW's

President. The

other

UHW

Directors

have

included

Arianna

Jimenez ("Jimenez"), C

Gualvez ("Gualvez"), and

David Kieffer ("Kieffer").

34. In addition to the two Co-Chairs, CFC has a Secretary and a

Treasurer.

At all relevant

times,

Jimenez has served as Secretary and Defendant

Adams

has served

as

Treasurer.

35.

CF C

is

independent and legally distinct

from CHA,

CAHHS, and

UHW. Even

tiiough

Director may also serve as

an

officer

or director

of

CHA,

CAHHS,

or UHW,

each Director o

CFC owes a duty to CFC that obligates them to

"perform

the duties of a

director

in

good

fai

a

manner such director

believes

to be in the

best

interest

of

this corporation

and

with such

ca

including

reasonable

inquiry, as an ordinarily

pmdent

person in a like

situation

would use un

similar circumstances."

36. CFC

employs

an

Executive

Director, Peter

Ragone ("Ragone"),

who reports to the

Co

Chairs.

37. The Board of

Directors

must authorize any expenditure. The Executive Director is

7

COMPLAINT


8/25

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

R O G E R &

R O S E N F E L D

Pnfisslona]

Corporal

icm

m

V i l h ( * P B f a i 4 y . & i i U » 0

A l n i c i l h C d i l M 9 4 » l

(Jl0)337-I00)

authorized to

sign

checks for

amounts

up to fifty

thousand

dollars, provided

that

the Board ha

authorized such

expenditures,

but he

mustfirstreceive approval

from

both

Co-Chairs. The C

Chairs must

jointly

sign

checks for

expenditures

over fifty thousand

dollars

and

only

for Boar

authorized expenditures.

38. In order for the

Board

to

take

any action, the Bylaws of CFC

require

a quorum to be

established.

The

Bylaws define a

quorum

as "[t]he presence of both

Co-Chairs

plus at

least

t

other

CHA

Directors

and two

other SEIU-UHW Directors

"

Once

a quorum is

establishe

an

action may only be approved

if

"both

Co-Chairs

plus

at

least

two of the CHA Directors and

two of the

SEIU-UHW

Directors" vote in favor. Thus, either Co-Chair may veto an action

simply by

withholding

his approval.

C.

CFC S

BALLOT MEASURE AND THE ABC COALITION S COMPETING

BALLOT

MEASURE

39. One of CFC's major

purposes,

and its

sole focus

for its first two

years,

is and

should

continue

to be to

obtain full funding

for Medi-Cal.

40. To

this

end, on July 28,2015, the Board of Directors unanimously approved a "Strateg

Plan"

aimed at

"obtaining

fiill Medi-Cal funding and

payments

to

hospitals

for services rende

to

Medi-Cal

beneficiaries

to the

maximum amount allowed under federal

law

without reliance

a hospital fee, tax, or

assessment program."

41

As

part o f the Strategic Plan adopted

by

the Board o f Directors, the parties devel

initiative that would be placed on the November 2016 statewide ballot that would rely, in

revenue generated from he current but temporary personal income tax rates for individ

making over $300,000 year, as established by Proposition 30. In addition, CFC's initia

contain two additional increased tax rates for individuals making over $1 million and $

annually. This initiative was entitled The Invest in California's Children Act.

42. A

conservative estimate

is

that these taxes would produce

$ 10 billion in increased ann

revenue. The

revenue

generated by the

taxes

would be distributed to public

education

(K-14)

(45%),

higher

public

education (5%),

Medi-Cal (40%), and

early leaming programs

(10%).

43. If passed, CFC's initiative would, by

conservative

estimates, produce $4 billion in

permanent annual revenue

for Medi-Cal, with

most of the money going to doctors

and

hospit

8

COMPLAINT


9/25

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RG. ROGER &

ROSENFELD

PFo&ssiMia) Corporaiiaa

ViIbt«riifc««y:S«il«UO

This would

fully fund

Medi-Cal,

and,

in

the

process, improve

the

lives

of

millions

of

Califomians v̂ ô rely on the

Medi-Cal

program.

44. At or around the

same

time CFC was developing its idea of a ballot initiative to fix and

fully

ftmd

he

Medi-Cal

program,

a

separate coalition that includes

the

Califomia

Teachers

Association ( CTA'O,

the

Califomia

Medical

Association ( CMA ),

and the

SEIU State Counc

("State Council)

(collectively

known as the ABC Coalition"), began to develop a competing

ballot

initiativetiiat would use

revenue

derived from the Proposition 30

taxes

to fund K-12

education,

but not

Medi-Cal, higher education or early leaming.

45. In or around August 2015, CFC became

aware

that the ABC Coalition was planning to

file

a competing initiative. At

this time,

various

Directors

of CFC

advocated that

CFC fil ts

initiative

with the

Califomia Attomey General before

the

ABC Coalition filed

ts initiative, an

concurrentiy engage

representatives

of the A BC Coalition in an effort to get the two organizati

to agree on

a single

initiative rather than having competing

initiatives

on the 2016

ballot.

46.

In

or

around August

2015,

Defendant Dauner

claimed

that

he had

knowledge that

the

ABC Coalition would not meet with CFC. Defendant Dauner

made

it clear that he opposed

proposal

that

called for CF C to fil ts own initiative,

despite

the

fact that

the

A BC

Coalition

might file

their

initiative first

and put

CFC's initiative

at

an electoral disadvantage.

47. Because

Defendant

Dauner, as

a

Co-Chair o f CFC, must approve any action of the Boa

of Directors, he

effectively

vetoed filing

CFC's

Invest

in California's Children

Act

in

August

2015.

48.

On September 14,2015,

the

AB C Coalition filed

ts

competing

initiative.

The School

Funding and Stability Act of 2016, with the Califomia

Attomey

General.

49.

Defendant

Dauner's

opposition

to

CFC's

filing

ts own

initiative

was

significant,

becau

it provided the

A BC

Coalition with multiple

strategic

and procedural advantages

over

CFC,

which

had yet to file ts own initiative.

For example, a party that files

an

initiative before anot

that

will

compete with it can (1)

collect

signatures for the initiative before the party filing a

competing initiative, and (2) once qualified, the initiative

receives

preferential

placement

on t

election ballot.

9

COMPLAINT


10/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

PnfitfsioDal Corpomion

U ^ VUhp M« ra r, SnlH

zoo

a» di .Ct] i l i nbH»l

(3IO)3]7-im

50. Defendant Dauner intentionally

opposed

the filing of CFC's initiative prior to the filing

the ABC Coalition's initiative for

a

nefarious purpose - that is, in order to put CFC's initiative

a

disadvantage,

while providing both a strategic and

procedural advantage

to the

ABC

Coalition

Defendant Dauner, however, kept

to

himself the fact

that

he had

been

secretiy

working

with

th

ABC Coalition to undermine CFC's initiative.

51. On September

15,2015, after

the

ABC

Coalition had

alreaidy filed

ts

initiative,

the Boar

of Directors

unanimously

voted to file CFC's initiative on September 21,2015. In accordance

with

the Board's

unanimous

vote, CFC's

initiative. Invest


Act,

was file

with

the

Califomia

Attomey

General.

The

proponents

of the initiative are

Gualvez,

who

serve

on the Board o f Directors of CFC, and Dietmar Grellmann, Senior

Vice

President of Professiona

Services for CHA. Defendant Dauner personally selected Grellmann to serve as the proponent

and Grellmann is

Dauner's

subordinate.

52. After personally selecting Grellmann as the proponent. Defendant Dauner threatened

Regan that

Grellmann would not

participate in

the filing and processing of CFC's initiative

i f

CHA decided

to end its partnership

with UHW. Regan

informed Defendant Dauner that

Grellmann could not unilaterally block the filing and processing of CFC's initiative.

53. On

October 26,2015,

the Board of Directors

unanimously agreed

to fund a

campaign

committee with

a $9 million dollar loan and

$1

million dollar contribution, to support CFC's

initiative.

Invest


Act.

Although Defendant Dauner approved

this

action

he had no intention

of

approving any

expenditure that

would

enable

the

committee's operation

because

ofhis

secret

deal

with

the

ABC

Coalition to

undermine

CFC's initiative.

D.

AT T H E EXPENSE OF

MILLIONS

O F CALIFORNIANS

WHO

R E L Y ON

MED

CAL,

DEFENDANT

DAUNER AND CH A EMBARKED ON

A COVERT

CAMPAIGN TO UNDERMINE

CF C

B Y

W O R KING

W I TH

TH E

ABC

COALITION

54. In or

around

March 2015, Defendant Dauner had been secretiy

meeting with

members o

the A BC Coalition, altiiough iie ABC Coalition had not yet been formally organized. Defendan

Dauner routinely met

with

Dustin

Corcoran,

the CEO of

CMA, in order to

keep him informed o

the

business

of CFC, including but not

limited

to CFC's confidential Strategic

Plan.

55. During

this same

period. Defendant Dauner also met

with

representatives of the SEIU

10

COMPLAINT


11/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

ProTcislonil Corporaiioii

hriEiray, SdM 300

OIO)3]T.|0OI

State

Council in order to keep

them

informed ofthe

business

of CFC, including but not limite

CFC's confidential "Sfrategic

Plan." The

SEIU

State

Council

is led by

Jon Youngdahl

("Youngdahl"),

who is the Executive Director ofthe State

Council,

and Laphonza

Butier

("Butier"),

who is

tiie

President

of

tiie

State

Council.

56.

In addition, Butler

is the

President

of the

SEIU, United Long-Term Care Workers

( ULTCW )

as

well

as tiie

provisional President

of

SEIU, Local

2015.

Local

2015 represents

approximately 285,000 home-care and nursing home workers m California, two constituencies

whose employers

rely on Medi-Cal funding and would benefit from a fully funded Medi-Cal

program. Local

2015 is the

result

of

a merger

of home

care and nursing

home members

from

tiiree

SEIU-affiliated Unions:

SEIU

Local

521, ULTCW, and UHW. As a

result

of tiie merg

UHW lost half its membership to

Local

2015.

57. Prior to the merger,

representatives

ofthe SEIU

State

Council informed

Defendant

Da

that

Regan would soon lose

half of UHW's membership and that Defendant

Dauner

needed

deal with Butier

and the State

Council

- not

Regan

and UHW - ifhe wanted to

accomplish

an

legislative and policy goals that were important to CHA's members.

58. On infonnation and belief.

Defendant

Dauner met with representatives of CTA in

orde

keep them

informed

of the business of

CFC, including

but not

lihiited

to

CFC's confidential

"Sfrategic

Plan."

59.

Beginning in or

around March 2015, Defendant

Dauner

decided to

work

covertly

with

CMA, the SEIU State

Coimcil,

and CTA, while duplicitously pretending to carry out his duties

a Director and Officer in the interest of CFC.

60. Defendant Dauner chose to work

with

the ABC Coalition for

several

reasons. First, he

feared

CTA's

political

reach

in

Sacramento. Second,

he no

longer

wanted

to be

involved

ih a

"sfrategic

partnership" with UHW because the partnership was

threatening

his

power

within

CHA, and members of CH A were

calling

for an end to the

partnership

for ideological reasons.

Third, he believed that he could take

advantage

of an

intemal

SEIU

disagreement

between

Bu

and

Regan

regarding the ransfer of UHW members into Local 2015.

61. In or around August 2015, after the ABC Coalition had officially formed and after the

11

COMPLAINT


12/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

ProfeBlonaJ

Catpomloa

Uvtn

VUU|i hritMny;

S IU 200

' '•.CdifinfeWOI

ABC Coalition had

drafted

its competing

initiative.

Defendant Dauner took actions to sabotag

CFC's initiative, while hiding from his Co-Chair and UHW Directors the fact that he was secr

working with the

ABC

Coalition to imdermine

CFC's

initiative.

62.

To

this

end.

Defendant

Dauner

opposed

the

filing

of

CFC's

initiative

before

the

ABC

Coalition filed ts

initiative.

He

also

refused to authorize expenditures that CFC had incurred

related to a

public

Medi-Cal campaign and its initiative campaign.

63. In or around August 2015,

Defendant

Dauner promised the A BC Coalition that he wou

get

CFC

to

abandon

its

effort

to get its

initiative

enacted.

64. In an effort to avoid being exposed as a saboteur, Defendant Dauner did not initially s

to block every action that CFC

decided

to take regarding CFC's initiative. Defendant Dauner

failure to get CFC to abandon its initiative did not sit well with the

ABC

Coalition, which

believed

that it

had

been double-crossed by Defendant

Dauner.

65. As a

result,

on

October

29,2015, in

order

to bring

maximum pressure

and leverage to

on Defendant Dauner, attomeys for the A BC Coalition filed three ballot initiatives aimed

dire

at the hospital

industry:

the

Charitable

Hospital Executive Compensation Act of 2016, which, i

enacted, would limit the pay of

hospital executives;

the Fair

Healthcare

Pricing Act of 2016,

which would cap the

prices

of

medical

services

charged

by hospitals; and the Charity

Care

Ac

2016, which would require

hospitals

to provide a certain level of charity care.

These

measure

enacted,

would

cost

the hospital industry millions of dollars.

66.

These

initiatives

captured

Defendant Dauner's attention.

Following

the filing of

these

initiatives. Defendant Dauner, in consultation and agreement

with

the other Defendants, decid

to make a deal with the ABC Coalition. The agreement consisted of Defendants, on behalf of

CHA,

offering

to

support

inancially

the

A BC

Coalition's

original

initiative

and

offering

to use

his

veto

power, as

Co-Chair

of CFC, to

veto

any

Corporation

action in exchange for the

ABC

Coalition dropping its three

later

initiatives and

redrafting

the ABC

Coalition's

original initiat

to provide at

least

$1

billion

dollars to the hospital

industry.

67. On November 2,2015, Defendant

Dauner

requested a

conference

call

with Regan

and

multiple other persons,

including

other Directors of CFC to discuss CFC's initiative and his

12

COMPLAINT


13/25

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RG, R OGER

&

ROSENFELD

PrarttfSlonal Coipotalkn

Jia)]3T.|00l

94501

agreement with the A BC Coalition.

68

On the call. Defendant Dauner revealed that he had been secretiy meeting and n

with the ABC Coalition regarding its competing initiative. The School Funding

and Sta

of2016

69.

Defendant

Dauner

explained that

he had engaged in these

covert actions

because the C

Board

of

Directors

had insfructed him to do so and

that a

"substantial number of

hospitals,"

affiliated

with

CHA did not want CHA to participate in CFC

or

to

continue

its

partnership wit

UHW. The reason that a substantial number of

hospitals wanted

to end the sfrategic partnersh

between

CHA and UHW is because these

hospitals

are philosophically opposed to the

unionization ofthe hospital

industry and

seek

to

remain non-union

so

that they

may

continue

without

interference,

to

provide

their

employees

substandard working

conditions,

pay, and

benefits. Because the ABC Coalition does not

consist

of any labor organization that

seeks

to

organize

hospital

workers

in

Califomia,

working with the A BC Coalition is

preferred over

working with UHW.

70.

During

the

call. Defendant Dauner revealed that

his

discussions

with the

A BC Coalitio

had led to a written agreement, executed by and

between

CTA, CMA, and the SEIU

State

Cou

and

Defendant

Dauner and CHA.

71 According to Dauner, the agreement with the ABC Coalition provides that Defen

CHA

will

jointiy sponsor, and contribute

financially o

the ABC Coalition's The School

and Stab ility

Act

of 2075

that

is

in direct competition with CFC's initiative. Invest in Cal

Children Act

72.

Defendant

Dauner

further agreed

to to veto any

expenditure"

to

support

CFC's initia

and

Adams,

Laret and

Holmes agreed

to

support

Dauner

in

this cessation

of

CFC's

activities.

Thus, the CHA Directors agreed to terminate all of CFC's

operations

by using Defendant

Dauner's veto

power

73. Put otherwise. Defendant Dauner agreed to use his position of

power

to quash

CFC's

initiative and to support the ABC Coalition's competing initiative, and the

other

CHA Directo

accepted

and

enabled this decision.

As a result, lacking any financial support, CFC's initiativ

13

COMPLAINT


14/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

&

ROSCNFELD

Prarenlofial

Corpofailoa Uaraa Pvfcvqr. Sniu m

Abmdi,CilirtnUM»l

(}0)337-1001

certain to

fail and

the

ABC Coalition's initiative

will have no

effective

opposition.

74. As

part

of the

quid

pro quo that Defendant

Dauner and CH A

entered into

with

the

AB

Coalition,

Defendant Dauner

and

CH A agreed to sponsor

ahd

inancially support the

ABC

Coalition's initiative.

The

School

Funding

and

Stability

Act

of 2016.

In

exchange

for

Defenda

promise

to

terminate

the efforts of

CFC,

Defendants

confirmed

that the

ABC Coalition had

agreed to

withdraw

its three

later-filed

initiatives - the Charitable Hospital Executive

Compensation

Act

of 2016; the Fair Healthcare Pricing Act of 2016;

and

the Charity Care

Act

2016 (collectively, the

AB C Ballot Measures")

-

that

threatened the

hospital industry's

reven

and

which the

ABC Coalition had

used to

bring

Defendants "to heel."

75.

Dauner

sold his

veto

power as

a Co-Chau:

of

CFC in exchange for

the

ABC Coalition

withdrawing

its three

anti-hospital

initiatives

and

the

ABC

Coalition rewriting its origuial

initiative to provide the hospital

industry with at

least

a

billion dollars

in annual revenue.

76.

Adams, Laret

and Holmes

approved

this sale

after

the

fact and

have since agreed to

s

down

CFC

as

part

of the

deal with

the

ABC Coalition.

77.

On

November 5,2015,

CHA publicly

announced it

had reached an agreement with

"th

Califomia

Medical Association,

the Califomia

Teachers Association and

SEIU Califomia Stat

Council... to

sponsor

a new ballot measure that will extend the temporary income tax provis

of

Proposition

30

from

Jan.

1,2019 iirough

Dec.

31,2030." CH A Press Release, CHA Joins

With

Doctors, Teachers,

and State Workers to Sponsor Single Prop. 30 Ballot

Measure

(Nov.

2015).

78

The public aimouncement also made clear that CHA's financial and advocacy

will

be

devoted

to

enacting this

new

jointiy sponsored initiative. [And] CHA will not pr

support for any other Proposition 30 extension initiative. Ibid.

79.

On

November 18,2015, Defendants spoke

with Regan regarding

the

ABC Coalition's

initiative.

Defendants

pleaded

with Regan

to dissolve CFC. Regan, however, refused to agre

dissolution.

In accordance with

his

agreement with

the

ABC Coalition,

Defendant

Dauner sta

that he would exercise his

veto

power, as Co-Chair, on any

and all decisions

that came before

CFC

regarding

expenditures related to

CFC's

initiative, which CFC

had

unanimously voted to

_14

COMPLAINT


15/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER A

ROS£NFEU>

Piofbstlonal Coipontion

Martaa

VObgt hifcwsy. Bttiu

200

(5IO}3r-iaol

and

fund.

80. During

this

conversation, Dauner explained that his decision to veto any and all

expenditures

had nothing to do with his fiduciaryduty and loyalty to CFC. Rather, Defendant

Dauner

explained that

his

decision to veto any and

all expenditures

was

based

upon

(1)

his

agreement to support and

finance

he ABC Coalition's initiative, which

is

in direct

competition

with

CFC's

initiative, and (2) his

loyalty

to CHA and CHA's Board

of

Directors,

which

had

durected

him

to end

his participation with UHW

and CFC.

81. By refusing to approve any expenditure related to CFC's initiative. Defendant Dauner

CHA

have

blocked the ability

of

UHW to expend any portion

of

its more than

$7 million

dolla

contribution to

CFC

in support of CFC's initiative.

82. Defendants' seizure of UHW's contribution of more than $7 million

serves

only the

interest of

the ABC Coalition,

which Defendants have

now

agreed

to financially

support,

beca

it

means

that the ABC

Coalition

can run a campaign in support of

its

initiative without a

financially backed opposition and without

facing

a financially-sfrong competitor.

83. Defendants' agreement

with

the ABC

Coalition

is in direct confiict

with

their fiduciary

duties

to CFC.

84. The agreement

with

the

ABC Coalition

was negotiated in secrecy and

without f i i l l

disclosure and specifically requires Defendant

Daimer

to act in a manner confrary to the best

interests

of

CFC.

85. Because Defendant

Dauner

can veto any action

of

CFC by

virtue

ofhis position as Co-

Chair and

because

the three other

CHA-appointed

Directors are Defendant Dauner's subordma

at CHA, any

effort

to remedy Defendant Dauner's conduct

or

to

demand

that CFC bring suit

against

Defendant Dauner

for

breach

of

fiduciary

duty

would

be

futile.

First

Cause

of Action

(Breach of

Fiduciary

Duty)

U H W , on

Behalf

of CFC, against Defendants

86. UH W

hereby incorporates

the allegations set forth iri Paragraphs 1-85

of

this Complaint

by

reference as i f set forth in full herein.

87. At all

imes

relevant to this Complaint, UHW has been a member of CFC, as that

term

_15

COMPLAINT


16/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER A

ROSENFELD

Prtrfcttlana] Caporaiion

VtOifa

PrtiMy.

Suha

300

310)337.1001

defined by Califomia Corporation Code § 5056, because UHW has the right o vote for the

election

of a dfrector

or directors, on

a

disposition

of all

or substantially

all of

the

assets of

CFC

or on a

merger

or dissolution.

88.

Califomia

Corporations

Code

§

7231 obligates

directors, officers and

executive

board

members to execute their duties in good faith and with such care as an ordinarily pmdent

perso

in

a like

position would

use

under

similar

circumstances.

This duty does not exist solely within

statute,

but

within Califomia

common

law

as

well.

89.

As

Directors

of

CFC,

Defendants

owe CFC the

highest

degree

of honesty

and

loyalty

a

fiduciary and are

under

a statutory and common law duty take no actions adverse to CFC, an

conduct themselves with the utmost good faith, trust, candor, and confidence with regard to CF

90. Because Defendants have unilaterally elected to terminate the operations of CFC, have

failed

to conduct themselves with candor,

have

withheld critical information from CFC, and

h

committed

themselves to a course of

action

directiy adverse to

the purposes and

goals of

CFC,

they

have

breached thefr

fiduciary duties

to CFC and

have failed

to act in its best interest.

91.

This

breach

has caused, and

continues to

cause, CFC damage

in

an

amount

to be

determined at

trial.

Second Cause

of Action

(Breach of

Fiduciary

Duty)

UHW against

Defendants

92. UHW

hereby

incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-91 ofthis Complain

by

reference

as

i f

set forth

in full

herein.

93.

At all

times relevant

to

this Complaint, UHW has

been a member of

CFC, as

that

term

defined by Califomia Corporation Code § 5056, because UHW has the right o vote for the

election of a director or directors, on disposition of

all

or substantially

all

of the

assets

of CFC,

on

a merger

or dissolution.

94. Califomia Corporations Code § 7231 obligates directors, officers and executive board

members to execute their duties in good faith and with such care as an ordinarily pmdent perso

in

a like position

would

use

under similar cfrcumstances.

This duty does not exist solely

within

statute, but within Califomia common law as

well.

_16

COMPLAINT

~ • ~ ~


17/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

A

ROSENFELD

CoipwatioD

Uufaa Vi|l>c« Fwtmy.

S D I U

300

(310)}37I00I

95. As Dfrectors

of

CFC,

Defendants

owe CFC the

highest

degree

of

honesty and

loyalty

a

fiduciary and are

under

a

statutory

and common law

duty

take no actions adverse to CFC, and

conduct themselves with the utmost good faith, tmst, candor, and confidence with regard to CF

96.

Because

Defendants

have

unilaterally

elected

to

terminate

the

operations

of

CFC, have

failed to conduct themselves with candor, have withheld critical information from CFC, and ha

committed themselves to a

course of

action directiy adverse to the purposes and goals

of

CFC,

they

have breached

thefr

fiduciary duties to CFC and have failed to act in its best interest.

97. This

breach

uniquely harmed UHW among the members because CFC is comprised of

two designators, UHW and CHA. Because

Defendants

conduct in breaching thefr fiduciary

duties was in furtherance of CHA's interests and confrary to

UHW's,

Defendant' conduct caus

a unique injury to UH W.

98.

This

breach has

caused,

and continues to

cause, UHW damage in an

amount

to

be

determined at trial.

Third Cause

of Action

(Fraud by Concealment)

UHW, on Behalf of CFC, against Dauner

99. UHW hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-98 of this Complain

by reference as i f set forth in f i i l l herein.

100. Civil Code section 1710 specifies fraud can consist of (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of th

which

is not tme,

by one

who does not

believe

it to

be tme [uitentional misrepresentation of

fact

and (2) the suppression

of

a fact, by one who is bound to

disclose

i t, or who gives information o

other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact [concealment or

suppression

of

fact].

101. As

a Co-Chair and Director of

CFC,

Dauner

has a

fiduciary

duty

to CFC

which

includes

duty

of

candor.

102. When Defendant

Dauner failed

to

disclose

to CFC his secret negotiations with the ABC

Coalition,

Defendant Daimer intentionally failed to disclose an important fact that was known

only to him and that CFC

could

not

have

discovered,

103. Because Dauner did not disclose these secret

agreements,

Dauner was able to underm

. 17

COMPLAINT


18/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

&

ROSENFELD

Pnrfkssiofttl Cofpomlion

St


19/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

Pnfiessional Corporalton

VSDv*

pHfciMy,

Mu

3fB

(SIO)33%)00l

proposed expenditures.

115. The decision to cease all expenditures was not taken as a proper

Board

action and

therefore

CFC

did

not

consent

to

it.

116. This action dfrectiy and proximately

caused

CFC harm

in

an

amount

to

be

established a

tiial.

Sixth Cause of Action

(Violation of Business & Professions Code

§§ 17200

etseq.)

U H W,

on Behalf of

CFC,

against Defendants

117.

UHW

hereby incorporates the

allegations

set

forth in Paragraphs

1-116 of this Complain

by reference as i f set forth in full herein.

118. Defendants'

acts

and

practices

as detailed above

constitute acts

of unfafr competition.

119.

Defendants

have engaged in an unlawful, unfafr orfraudulent business

acts

and/or

practices within

the

meaning

of

Califomia

Business

& Professions Code §

17200.

120. All

parties

to this action are

persons

as

that term is defined in Califomia Business and

Professions Code § 17201.

121.

Defendants

have engaged in an unlawful business

act and/or

practice by engaging in

conduct set

forth

above.

These business acts

and

practices

violated

numerous

provisions of

law

including, inter alia, Califomia Penal Code § 641.3 and Califomia Corporations Code § 7231.

Plaintiff

reserves the right o identify additional violations of

law

as

further

investigation

warrants.

122. Califomia Penal Code § 641,3(a) prohibits employees

from

accepting, or agreeing to

accept, anything of

value from a

person other than his

or

her employer cormptiy

aiid vvithout ti

knowledge or consent ofthe employer, in retum for using or agreeing to use his or her position

for

the benefit

of

that other person.

123. Califomia Penal Code § 641.3(d)(1) defines

employees

to include directors such as

Defendants.

124.

Califomia Penal Code §

641.3(d)(3) defines cormptiy as intending

to injure

or defraud

employer.

125. Because Defendant Dauner secretly and without

CFC's

consent agreed to cease

the

19

COMPLAINT


20/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ERG, ROGER &

ROSENFELD

Prolbsilonal Corporatloa

Vdbia

Pidnay,

SBha

100

A l uMh Callflnl* MSOl

(»10)S37-I00l

operations of CFC in exchange for the ACB

Coalition's

promise to withdraw the ABC Ballot

Measures and because

Defendant

Dauner

intended

to injure and/or defraud C FC by entering

this

agreement.

Defendant Dauner violated Califomia

Penal

Code § 641.3 and thus committed

unfafr, unlawful,

and/or

raudulent

business

act

or

practice within

the

meaning

of California

Business and Professions Code § 17200.

126. Because

Defendants

agreed

without

CFC's consent to terminate the

operations

of CFC

exchange for the A CB

Coalition's

promise to withdraw the ABC Ballot

Measures

and

because

Defendants intended

to injure and/or

defraud

C FC by entering into this

agreement. Defendan

violated Califomia Corporations Code § 7231, which obligates

directors, such

as Defendants,

mutual benefit corporations,

such

as CFC, to

perform

thefr duties in good faith, in a manner

director

believes to be in the best interests of CFC and

with such care, including

reasonable

inquiry, as

an

ordinarily

pmdent

person in a like

position

would use under

similar

cfrcumstan

Defendants thus committed an unfair, unlawful

and/or

raudulent business act or

practice with

the meaning of Califomia Business and

Professions

Code § 17200.

127. By engaging the aforementioned conduct, CFC has suffered injury in fact and has lost

money or property as a result of

Defendants' conduct.

128. UH W brings this Cause of Action

derivatively

and on

behalf

of CFC and on

behalf

of t

public as private

attomeys

general

pursuant

to Business

& Professions Code § 17204.

129. Pursuant to

Califomia

Business &

Professions

Code

§

17203, UHW, on behalf of CFC

seeks a

temporary, preliminary, and/or

pennanent

order

from this Court

prohibiting

Defendan

from taking fiuther

actions against

the

interest

of CFC, removing

Defendant

Daunerfrom

hi

position

as

director

and co-chair of CFC, and refomung CFC's By-Laws so that CHA may

appomt

a

Co-Chafr

other than

CHA's

President.

130. Pursuant to Business &

Professions

Code § 17204,

UHW,

on behalf of CFC,

seeks

an

order

of this Court enjoining Defendant Dauner

from

continuing to engage in the acts as set

fo

in

tiiis

Complaint, including

holding

the

position

of Director

and Co-Chair

of CFC.

131. CFC will be irreparably harmed if

such

an

order

is not granted.

/ / /

20

COMPLAINT


21/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

vaiati

M n y ;

SBiu

300

AhmdhCillfbnuMMI


22/25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

139. As a

proximate

result of Defendant Dauner's bad faith actions, unlawfiil conduct, and

breach

of fiduciary duty, UHW has suffered and

will

continue to

suffer

substantial and irrepara

harm.

140

C F C

is

a

mutual benefit corporations

a s

defined

b y

a nd

govemed

b y

Califomia

Corporations Code

§

§ 7110

e / seq

141. Pursuant to CFC's By-Laws, UHW is one of two Designators and has the right o

appoint half the Board of

Dfrectors

and is

therefore

a

member

as that term is defined by

Califomia Corporations Code § 5056 and a 50% shareholder as that term is understood

under

Califomia Corporations Code §§ 5071-5072,

142. Califomia Corporations Code § 304

authorizes

the Court to remove from

office

any

director

in

case

of fraudulent

or

dishonest acts

or

gross abuse of authority or

discretion

with

reference to CFC and may bar from reelection any director so removed for a period prescribed b

the Court upon the suit

of

shareholders holding at least

10 percent of

the number

of

outstanding

shares ofany class.

143. UHW, as a shareholder with more than 50% of the shares in CFC, files such a suit base

upon the unlawfiil, dishonest, and bad faith abuse of discretion of Defendant

Dauner

in

agreei

to veto any Board action in exchange for the ABC Coalition's promise to withdraw the ABC

Ballot Measures

and

other

value.

144. In order to prevent and resfrain a continuation of Defendant Dauner's

unlawful activity

and

gross

abuse of

authority,

wdiich in the

absence

of injunctive

relief

is likely to occur, CFC is

entitied

to permanent injunctive relief and Defendant

Dauner

must be removed bom his

office

Director

and Co-Chair.

V. P RA YER FOR

RELIEF

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiff

prays

that this Court award

it

the

following

relief:

1.

Damages

in an

amount

to be determined at

trial;

2.

Interest

on all sums

awarded;

ROGER &

ROSENFELD

Praieslonsl OnpoEBtloo

Vilbc Pirinny. SuJh 300

AboMdi. CiliTimU MSOl

010)337.1001

22

COMPLAINT


23/25

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

. ROSENFELD

Pntfisslonal CoTpomioa

Uvt e VObi* P^ utty.S BI U m

Abmdi.C>li ftRn«4»l

(J 10)

337.1001

3.

Reformation

of CFC's Bylaws to remove the

veto

power of the Co-Chairs and t

decouple the position of Co-Chair from the Presidency of CHA;

4. Injunctive relief

ordering Dauner

to

resign from

his

position

as

Co-Chafr

and

Director

of

CFC;

and

5.

Such

other and

fiirther

relief as the Court

deems proper.

Dated:

November 24,2015

By:

WEINBERG, ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

A Professional Corporation

BRUCE A.

HARLAND

EMILY

P. RICH '

MICHAEL D. BURSTEIN

Attomeys for Plaintiff

SEIU,

UNITED

HEALTHCARE W ORKERS

-

WEST, on its own

behalf and on behalf

of

CARING FOR

CALIFORNIANS,

LLC

23

COMPLAINT


24/25

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

PntesioDal

CcBpooUon

PUknr, S D R

300

AbnM^

CilUinla 94501

StO) 337-1001

DEMAND

FOR JURY

TRIAL

Plaintiff Service

Employees

Intemational

Union,

United

Healthcare

Workers - West

hereby demands a

jury trial on all issues and

causes of

action.

Dated: November

24,2015

By:

WEINBERG,

ROGER

&

ROSENFELD

A Professional

Corporation

BRUCE A .

HARLAND

EMILY

P. RICH

MICHAEL

D. BURSTEIN

Attomeys

for Plaintiff SEIU,

UNITED

HEALTHCARE WORKERS

-

WEST, on its ow

behalf and on behalf of

CARING

FOR

CALIFORNIANS, LLC

24

COMPLAINT


25/25

GDSSC COV^^^SOHT

seiu-uhw's lawsuit against duane dauner, greg adams and the california hospital ass'n, nov. 24, 2015

Documents