alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             491
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,295
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      6,248
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         39,253
<ALLOWANCE>                                         68
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,707
<DEPOSITS>                                      30,012
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,438
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                338
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  48,707
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,221
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  408
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    26
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,655
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,503
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,152
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       11
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    312
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         312
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.51
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       181
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    58
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   68
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             68
        

</TABLE>
[938 NYS2d 886]

#### In the Matter of Andrew L. Schwab (Admitted as Andrew Laurence Schwab), an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

February 28, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Stephen P. McGoldrick*of counsel), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Andrew Laurence Schwab was admitted to the *50practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 27, 1982. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained his principal place of business within the First Judicial Department.

In March 2011, respondent was charged in an indictment filed in Supreme Court, New York County, with four counts of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35), a class D felony, and scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65), a class E felony.

On August 11, 2011, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grand larceny in the third degree in full satisfaction of the charges. Respondent admitted during his plea allocution that on or about October 6, 2008 to on or about April 18, 2010, he stole property valued in excess of $3,000 from A. Sharma.

On September 8, 2011, respondent was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years, and certain costs and surcharges.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys on the ground that he was automatically disbarred as of the date of his conviction of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (e) *(see Matter of Caro,*46 AD3d 136 [2007]; *Matter of Szegda,*42 AD3d 193 [2007]; *Matter of Lee,*25 AD3d 51 [2005]). Respondent, pro se, has not submitted a response to this petition.

For the purposes of automatic disbarment, conviction occurs at the time of plea or verdict *(Matter of Sheinbaum,*47 AD3d 49 [2007] ). Respondent’s conviction of the class D felony of grand larceny in the third degree constitutes grounds for his automatic disbarment *(Matter of Armenakis,*86 AD3d 205 [2011]; *Matter of Bernstein,*78 AD3d 94 [2010]; *Matter of Cherry,*51 AD3d 119 [2008] ; *Matter of Berenholtz,*40 AD3d 162 [2007]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s petition, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) and (b), should be granted, and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to August 11, 2011.

Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to August 11, 2011.
#### ROSE et al., Respondents, v. REYNOLDS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

December 28, 1895.)

Action by D. F. Rose and another against Thomas J. Reynolds.

No opinion. Judgment of Monroe county court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 99.2
 
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of PLM Equipment Growth Fund III Liquidating Trust (the "Trust"), on Form 10-KSB for year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Trustee and of the Trust, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:
 
 (1)  the Report of the Trust filed today fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the net assets in liquidation and changes in net assets in liquidation of the Trust.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Richard K Brock
 Richard K Brock
 Chief Financial Officer of PLM Financial Services, Inc.
 (Principal Financial Officer)
 March 25, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ROBERT LEE WEST Case No. 3:15-cv-00715-ST

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL

CITY OF PORTLAND, and PORTLAND

POLICE BUREAU, 

Defendants.

STEWART, Magistrate Judge:

Based on the STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE [32], IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice and without an award of attorney fees or costs to any party.

Dated this 6th day of April, 2016.

s/Janice M. Stewart 

Janice M. Stewart

United States Magistrate Judge

1 - ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 3:15-cv-00715-ST Document 34 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 1
Document

Exhibit 10.1

Amendment to Employment Agreement
This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made on March 24, 2020 by and between Scientific Games Corporation, a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) and Barry Cottle (“Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of May 4, 2018, which was then amended effective May 7, 2019 (the “Agreement”);
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
1.Decrease in Base Salary.  The Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 3(a):
“Effective as of April 5, 2020, Executive will be paid zero U.S. dollars of base salary until and through June 30, 2020, and Executive’s annual base salary of one million, seven hundred and fifty thousand U.S. dollars ($1,750,000) is reduced by four hundred seventeen thousand, one hundred and twenty-three U.S. dollars ($417,123), representing the portion of his annual base salary attributable to the period from April 5, 2020 through June 30, 2020.”
2. The Company and Executive further expressly agree that the decrease in base salary set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment does not constitute “Good Reason,” as that phrase is defined in Section 4(e) of the Agreement.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.  All references to the “Agreement” in the Agreement shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. Any defined terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Agreement.
        4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Amendment as of March 24, 2020.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION


By:    /s/ Shawn Williams   
Name: Shawn Williams 
Title: Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer 


        /s/ Barry Cottle 
Barry Cottle
1
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

DIANA C. KUNKLE, 

No. 6:14-cv-01605-JE

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security

 Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., 

On December 13, 2016, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [24], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be 

REVERSED and this case be REMANDED for an immediate award of benefits. No objections 

to the F&R were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

Case 6:14-cv-01605-JE Document 26 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderks’s recommendation and ADOPT the F&R [24] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of February, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge

Case 6:14-cv-01605-JE Document 26 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 2
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Edward D. and Tammy D., Respondents,

v.

Baby Girl B., a minor under the age of 14 years; South Carolina Department of Soci al Services; and Andrew J.M., Defendants,

Of Whom Andrew J. M. is Appellant.

And,

South Carolina Department of Social Services, Respondent,

v.

Erica S. and Andrew J. M., Defendants,

Of Whom Andrew J.M. is Appellant.

In the Interests of: Baby Girl B. (DOB: 05/15/13), a minor under the age of 14 years,

Intervenors: Eric P. a nd Sherry P., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002333

Appeal from York Count y David G. Guyton, Family Court JudgeMemorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-021 Heard April 21, 2015 – Filed April 23, 2015

VACATED AND REMANDED

Melinda Inman Butler, of Butler Law Firm, LLC, of Union, for Appellant.

Larry Dale Dove, of Dove & Barton, LLC, of Rock Hill, James Fletcher Thompson, of James Fletcher Thompson, LLC, of Spartanburg, David E. Simpson, of Rock Hill, Carl L. Solomon, of Columbia , Erick M. Barbare, of The Barbare Law Firm, of Gr eenville, L. Michelle Dhunjishah and Lindsey A. McCallister, both of Columbia, all for Respondents.

Krystal L. Orr, of Rock Hill, for Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an orde r of the family court. A merits hearing was held on July 31, 2014; howeve r, the family court's order deciding the matters raised during that hearing wa s not issued until October 7, 2014.

On August 8, 2014, Chief Justice Toal issu ed an administrative order vesting in a different family court judge the exclus ive jurisdiction to "decide all matters pertaining to these cases, including any pending motions which may have been raised in prior hearings before another judge." In light of the Chief Justice's August 8, 2014 administrative order, we ar e constrained to vacate the October 7, 2014 order of the family court.VACATED AND REMANDED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KI TTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur
U.S. Department of Justice 

United States Marshals Service 

PLAINTIFF 

Anthony Cross 

DEFENDANT 

PROCESS RECEIPT AND RETURN 

See "Instructions for Service otProcess by U.S. Marshal" 

FILE105 NJ\1 •i414:44USOC~ COURT CASE NUMBER 

3: 14-cv-01310-KI 

TYPE OF PROCESS 

City of Portland, Asheim, Defrain, Burley, Murphy, Dale, Duilio Civil Summons, Complaint, etc. 

{

NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY, CORPORATION. ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN 

SERVE Charles Asheim 

AT ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code) 

PPB North Precinct, 449 NE Emerson St., Portland, OR 97211 

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO REQUESTER AT NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW 

I Zachary Spier, Attorney at Law 

405NW 18th Ave 

Portland, OR 97209 

L 

Number of process to be 

served with this Form 285 9 

Number of parties to be 

served in this case 7 

Check for service 

on U.S.A. 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE (Inclutle Business and Alternate Addresses. 

AU Tekphone Numbers, and Estimated Times Availabk for Service): 

Fold 

Process to be served: Summons, complaint, IFP application, case assignment order, magistrate consent, IFP order, 

discovery/scheduling order, discovery agreement, case management schedule 

The above defendant works 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. Wednesday through Saturday. Per PPB Directive 220.40, can schedule service at 

beginning or end of shift. Precinct# (503) 823-5700. 

(503) 305-3730 9/30/14 

mey other Originator requesti?~ on behalf of: _ IKJ PLAINTIFF 

............ ~ D DEFENDANT 

TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE 

RUSE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY-- DO NOT WRITE BELOW TIDS LINE 

Total Process Date 

Fold 

I hereby rtify and return that I 0 have personally served ,0 have legal evidence of service, D have executed as shown in Remarks", the process descn ed 

on the · dividual , company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above on the on the individual , company, corporation, etc. shown at the address inserted below. 

I hereby certify and return that I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc. named above (See remarks below) 

Name and title of individual served (if not shown above) 

Address (complete only different than shown above) 

Service Fee Total Mileage Charges Forwarding Fee Total Charges Advance Deposits 

including endeavors) 

~.10 <2r 

REMARKS: 

1'1{1'\ I 5 ( 01'11 S: 1. CLERK OF THE COURT 

2. USMS RECORD 

3. NOTICE OF SERVICE 

4. BILLING STATEMENT*: To be returned to the U.S. Marshal with payment, 

if any amount is owed. Please remit promptly payable to U.S. Marshal. 

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT 

0 A person of suitable age and discretion 

then residing in defendant's usual place 

of abode 

Date Time 

Amount owed to U.S. Marshal* or 

(Amount of Refund*) • 

-- $0.0 -

PRIO~ITmi!S ~11S USED 

o (,.) ~ rn 

0 •• .:oo 

:z .1:- ~ 

- j;; Form USM-285 

r- Rev. 12/80 

Case 3:14-cv-01310-KI Document 11 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 1
Rohn M. Robeus, OSB #793620 

rrobctts@arnoldgallaghet:.coln 

Aaron}. Noteboom, OSB :#040051 

anotcboom@amolclgallaghcr.com 

i\rnold Gallagher PC 

800 WHlamctte Street, Suite 800 

T.i:ugenc, Oregon 97 401-2296 

541-484-0188 Telephone 

541-484-0536 Fax 

Of"Attomep; f"ot· PlnintifT 

LJNlTED ST.t\'l'ES DIS'l'RJCT COURT 

DISTRICT' OF OlU:~·:GON 

EUCENJt: DIVISION 

OREGON TV, .LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, and OREGON TV 

LICENSE COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company , 

Plaintiffs, STIPULATED GENERAL 

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

v. 

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., a Colorado 

limited liability company, 

Defendant. -·------------------

Based upon the stipulation o~· t:hc parties hereto, as indicated below, by and through their 

attorneys of t·ccorcl, the patties have settled their diffetcnccs herein; and it appcating to the 

Court that there is no just reason for delay and that l1nal judgment should be cnt:et:cd het:cin, 

it is, 

I- STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL ARNOLD Gi\LI.1\GIIER P.C. 000 WlllnllWih• Sl., Still" OQO 

l!ugun~. Or"H"" 9740 l 

'l'elephlllw: 5•11..tiJ.I.Otull 

fill X 5•11..tllol.0536 

Case 6:14-cv-01398-TC Document 48 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: rhis matter is hereby dismissed with ptcjudicc and 

without costs and without atTorney f'ecs to any party. 

DATED' tlpc!lf .. 21Jl5 

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

ARNOLD GALLAGHER PC 

RolurlYI. Roberts, OSB #793620 

Aafon J. Noteboom, OSB #040051 

Of attorneys for Plaintiffs 

___ ac{,LA 

Chic f Judge 1\ n n L. Aiken 

HERSI-INER HUNTER LLP 

=tSJ.QJ;.\dAJl.§tiS~~===:::..__ Todd RtJhnston, OSB #992<)13 

Mario D. Conte, OSB #07%37 

Of attorneys for Defendant 

\ 

2 ·-STIPULATED GENERAL JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL Al\N()t.() GAI.I.AGIIllR P.C. 

liOO Wlllnnl\1\lc• St., Sultu 000 

EtiHCIH!, Oregon 97401 

T<:lllphnne: 5•11.1U·l.O IUU 

Fnx 5•11A!Io\.OS3C. 

Case 6:14-cv-01398-TC Document 48 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1



THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2004
Page 1 - Entry of Appearance

79559271.1 0204715-00001

Stevan D. Phillips, Pro Hac Vice pending

Brad S. Daniels, OSB No. 025178

Reed W. Morgan, OSB No. 140664

stevan.phillips@stoel.com

brad.daniels@stoel.com

reed.morgan@stoel.com

STOEL RIVES LLP

900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Facsimile: (503) 220-2480

Attorneys for Defendant 

Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

EILEEN FOX-QUAMME, LISA HESS, 

MARY REDFIELD, O.W., a minor child, 

LEIGH ANN CHAPMAN, and JEFF 

CLARK, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HEALTH NET HEALTH PLAN OF 

OREGON, INC., an Oregon corporation, 

and AMERICAN SPECIALTY HEALTH 

GROUP, INC., a California corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01248-BR

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 4 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 - Entry of Appearance

79559271.1 0204715-00001

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Stevan D. Phillips (Pro Hac Vice pending) and Reed W. 

Morgan hereby enter their appearances in the above-captioned matter as counsel on behalf of 

Defendant, Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, Inc.

DATED: July 20, 2015.

STOEL RIVES LLP

 /s/ Reed W. Morgan

Stevan D. Phillips, Pro Hac Vice pending

Brad S. Daniels, OSB No. 025178

Reed W. Morgan, OSB No. 140664

stevan.phillips@stoel.com

brad.daniels@stoel.com

reed.morgan@stoel.com

STOEL RIVES LLP

900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Facsimile: (503) 220-2480

Attorneys for Defendant 

Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, Inc.

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 4 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 3
Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

79559271.1 0204715-00001

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 20, 2015, I filed a copy of foregoing document with the 

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court– District of Oregon by using the CM/ECF 

system. Participants in this Case No. 3:15-cv-01248-BR who are registered CM/ECF users will 

be served by the CM/ECF system.

 ̈ mailing with postage prepaid

 ̈ overnight delivery

 ̈ email

ý notice of electronic filing using the CM/ECF system

DATED: July 20, 2010.

STOEL RIVES LLP

/s/ Reed W. Morgan

Stevan D. Phillips, Pro Hac Vice pending

Brad S. Daniels, OSB No. 025178

Reed W. Morgan, OSB No. 140664

stevan.phillips@stoel.com

brad.daniels@stoel.com

reed.morgan@stoel.com

STOEL RIVES LLP

900 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 224-3380

Facsimile: (503) 220-2480

Attorneys for Defendant 

Health Net Health Plan of Oregon, Inc.

Case 3:15-cv-01248-BR Document 4 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 3