WEIBLEY v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS 2:17-MD-2789 (CCC)(LDW) LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2789) This Document Relates to: OPINION AND ORDER All cases listed in Exhibit A

CECCHI, District Judge.

I. Introduction This matter comes before the Court upon Case Management Order (“CMO”) No. 65, ECF No. 723, entered on December 2, 2021, which identified 1,535 cases in which AstraZeneca LP (“AZLP”), AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (“AZPLP”), and Merck & Co. Inc. d/b/a Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) (collectively, the “AZ Defendants”) alleged that service of the summons and complaint had not been effected and in which no proof of service appeared on the docket of the case. CMO No. 65 ordered Plaintiffs in those cases within thirty days to (1) establish that service was effected on the AZ Defendants identified in Exhibit A to CMO No. 65, as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure1 by filing proof of service, (2) voluntarily dismiss the AZ Defendants, or (3) show cause why the AZ Defendants should not be dismissed within thirty days of entry of the Order. CMO No. 65, at 2 CMO No. 65 ordered Plaintiffs to file their responses on the dockets of the individual cases, and permitted the AZ Defendants to oppose within thirty days of each plaintiff’s response.2 Plaintiffs were specifically All references to Rules herein are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. Legal Standard Rule 4 governs the requirements regarding serving a summons. In particular, Rule 4(m) requires that “[i]f a defendant is not served 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to plaintiff – must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In the Third Circuit, establishing good cause requires a “demonstration of good faith on the part of a party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the time specified in the rules.” MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097.3 In the absence of a showing of good cause for failure timely to effect service, the Court has discretion either to dismiss a case or permit an extension. Id. at 1098 (citing Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298, 1305 (3d Cir. 1995)). It is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate good cause for such failure to effectuate timely service or to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion and not dismiss the AZ Defendants from their cases. Spence v. Lahood, No. 11-3972, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15 (D.N.J. June 8, 2012) (citing McCurdy v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191, 196 (3d Cir. 1998)).

response was extended to May 15, 2022, then to August 16, 2022, and then to October 17, 2022.

See CMO No. 67, at § I.D, ECF No. 747; CMO No. 70, at ¶ B, ECF No. 769; CMO No. 78, at ¶ A, ECF No. 841.

III. Discussion As stated above, CMO No. 65 ordered the identified Plaintiffs within thirty days to either establish that service was properly effectuated pursuant to Rule 4(m), voluntarily dismiss the AZ Defendants, or show cause why the AZ Defendants should not be dismissed. CMO No. 65 did not provide Plaintiffs with an extension of time to serve the Complaint, instead, it directed Plaintiffs to prove that service had in fact been effectuated or to “show cause why the AZ Defendants should not be dismissed.”

The 1,181 Plaintiffs in the cases identified on Exhibit A herein have failed to satisfy the requirements of CMO No. 65. Plaintiffs do not claim to have timely served the AZ Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m). See CMO No. 7, at § II.D (“Absent agreement of the parties or subsequent Order of the Court, service of process shall be effectuated as required under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”).4 While there is disagreement between Plaintiffs and the AZ Defendants concerning the fact or date of service in some of the cases here, it is undisputed that in the cases in which the AZ Defendants were served, service was effected only after CMO No. 65 was entered. In fact, of these 1,181 cases (and utilizing the earlier purported date of service in the event that the parties did not agree on the date of service), service was made between one to two years after the ninety-day period in Rule 4(m) in 9 cases; between two to three years after the ninety-day period in 228 cases; and between three to just over four years after the ninety-day period in 944 cases. Further, no Plaintiff here has dismissed the AZ Defendants from their case. Finally, as further elaborated below, Plaintiffs have not shown cause why the AZ Defendants should not

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs responded to CMO No. 65 by filing virtually identical responses that do not reference the AZ Defendants’ specific conduct. These responses attached an exhibit with limited information about the Plaintiffs’ individual cases, but did not include any documentation to support their assertions in the exhibit. The information in these exhibits filed by Plaintiffs includes such information as the date of alleged service (if any), whether a defendant had filed a notice of appearance, whether a defendant had filed a short form answer, whether a Plaintiff Fact Sheet had been uploaded to Marker Group, whether a Defense Fact Sheet had been served, and whether a defendant had sent a deficiency letter related to the Plaintiff Fact Sheet. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp.; Pl. Michael Lopez’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause Regarding Service of Process, Ex. A, No. 2:18-cv-04494, ECF No. 15 (“Lopez Resp.”). In addition, Plaintiffs’ briefing does not address any reasons for the failure to timely serve and instead focuses on arguments concerning the AZ Defendants’ purported waiver of service and the Court’s authority for discretionary extensions. See Houser v. Williams, No. 16-9072, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43518, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2020) (finding dismissal warranted where plaintiff did not serve the complaint for months after an agreed-upon extension and then failed to detail any steps he took towards serving defendant within the extended time afforded by the court).

Turning to the factors for evaluating good cause, the first factor examines the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts to serve the complaint. As noted, Plaintiffs offer no explanation for the failure to timely serve, nor an adequate description of reasonable steps that Plaintiffs took to effect timely service as required by Rule 4(m). And none of the Plaintiffs at issue here were close to satisfying timely service under Rule 4(m). As previously stated, in all 1,181 cases, service was effected at least one year after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed; indeed, in 944 cases, or approximately 80 percent, service was effected over three years after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed. Given Plaintiffs’ lack of sufficient efforts to serve the complaint, this factor weighs heavily in favor of the AZ Defendants.

Under the second factor, the Court considers prejudice to the AZ Defendants by lack of timely service. Here, Plaintiffs’ failure to serve caused the AZ Defendants to expend time and resources through investigation, consultation with opposing counsel, and advocating for and responding to case management orders – all to determine whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation against them. W. Coasts Quartz Corp. v. M.E.C. Tech, Inc., 2017 WL 1944197, at *2 (D.N.J. May 9, 2017). Moreover, this Court has previously determined that the AZ Defendants had been prejudiced by the delayed service or non-service. See Order Regarding CMO No. 65, at 7, ECF No. 890. Given the prejudice to the AZ Defendants resulting from Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve, this factor also cuts against good cause. And even if Plaintiffs had demonstrated lack of prejudice to the AZ Defendants, “absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to excuse late service.” MCI Telecomms Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097.

Finally, under the third factor, while Plaintiffs have now requested an extension of time to serve the AZ Defendants, they did so only after CMO No. 65 was entered, which was a year or more after the time to serve the AZ Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m) had lapsed. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp.; Lopez Resp. Plaintiffs have not explained why they did not request an extension of time to serve the AZ Defendants until after CMO No. 65 was entered by this Court.

Accordingly, this factor similarly weighs in favor of the AZ Defendants and against Plaintiffs’ showing of good cause.

Considering the three factors used to evaluate whether good cause has been demonstrated, Plaintiffs here have not demonstrated good cause for their failure to serve the AZ Defendants in compliance with Rule 4(m). b. Plaintiffs Have Not Persuaded the Court that a Discretionary Extension is Warranted In the absence of a showing of good cause mandating an extension to effectuate service, the Court nonetheless has discretion to either dismiss the case or permit extension. Because Plaintiffs have not established good cause, see supra, they must rely on the Court’s discretionary authority to excuse failures to comply with Rule 4(m). See Edwards v. Hillman, 849 F. App’x. 23, (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1305). The Court’s exercise of discretion in this area is guided by various factors, including: “actual notice of the legal action; prejudice to the defendant; the statute of limitations on the underlying causes of action; the conduct of the defendant; and whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel, in addition to any other factor that may be relevant.” Chiang v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., 331 Fed. App’x 113, 116 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Spence, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15. Here, considering these factors, Plaintiffs have not met their burden in persuading the Court that such discretion should be exercised under these circumstances.

With respect to the first factor—actual notice of the legal action—Plaintiffs argue that the AZ Defendants were on notice of their claims through their tolling agreement, which provided Plaintiffs time to obtain information about their claims before filing a complaint.5 However, the fact that a plaintiff was on the tolling agreement and may potentially bring a claim against the AZ Defendants or another defendant does not mean that the AZ Defendants had actual legal notice that a particular plaintiff would be pursuing his or her claim against the AZ Defendants in a legal action.

In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), upon which Plaintiffs rely for their argument that a court may extend the time for proper service if the defendant had “actual notice of the pending action,” is instructive. 2014 WL 1903904, at *1 (E.D. Pa., May 12, 2014); see Lucerne Resp. at 9- (citing Asbestos). The issue there concerned the appropriateness of a specific method of service by mail under Ohio law—not untimely service that occurred anywhere from one to four years past

In order to obtain the benefit of tolling under the tolling agreement, a claimant had to provide the following information to all defendants: name and date of birth of the PPI user, name(s) of any derivative claimant(s), city and state of residence, date of first PPI use, date of last PPI use, alleged injury, and name of claimant’s counsel. The Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee was to compile this information and submit it to the defendants on an Excel spreadsheet on a monthly basis. See Stip.

Regarding Tolling of Stats. of Lims., ECF No. 232, at 1-2. The data required to be provided to all defendants in the tolling agreement did not identify specific defendants whose product(s) were allegedly used by individual plaintiffs. the Rule 4(m) deadline. Notably, the court found that the defendants were on “actual legal notice” of the pending action because the plaintiffs provided proof of a green card signed by the defendant, evidencing receipt of the original process papers by defendants’ counsel, which the court found acceptable under Ohio state law. Asbestos, 2014 WL 1903904, at *1. By contrast, Plaintiffs here have not offered any similar evidence of actual notice. Indeed, as the AZ Defendants argue, the tolling agreement “covered Plaintiffs who could not yet show proof of use as to a Defendant’s product” and, moreover, did not identify a specific defendant or which PPI products were at issue as to a particular potential plaintiff. See, e.g., No. 19-cv-04209, ECF No. 10 at 10 n.3. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Asbestos is misplaced and they have not demonstrated that the AZ Defendants had actual notice of pending litigation.

Turning to prejudice to the defendant—the second factor—the Court reiterates its analysis when discussing the same factor in the context of good cause. See supra III.a (noting the AZ Defendants expended time and resources through their repeated attempts to determine whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation against them, including their own independent inquiries, as well as meetings with counsel and the special master). Further, this Court has previously found in this MDL (with respect to a different defendant) that “[w]asted time and resources and inconvenience standing alone may constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal.” CMO No. at 7 (citing Miller v. Advocare, LLC, No. 12-01069, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71451, at *8-9 (D.N.J. May 21, 2013). Accordingly, this factor weighs against Plaintiffs’ request.

Regarding the statute of limitations, the third factor, Plaintiffs argue that the applicable statute of limitations in most, if not all, of the actions subject to CMO No. 65 has expired. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp. at 21. However, “the expiration of the statute of limitations does not require the court to extend the time for service, as the court has discretion to dismiss the case even if the refiling of the action is barred.” MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1098. Given the length of time between filing and service in the cases of these Plaintiffs—in some cases over four years— Plaintiffs’ argument that the potential lapse of the statute of limitations warrants extension is not compelling. Relatedly, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the AZ Defendants engaged in any conduct to impede or frustrate timely service. See Spence, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15 (fourth factor). These factors thus militate against a discretionary extension as well.

The final factor guiding the Court’s discretion examines whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel. See Spence, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15. Plaintiffs here are all represented by counsel. And, in this context, “[e]ven when delay [in service] results from inadvertence of counsel, it need not be excused.” Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1307. This factor thus also weighs against a discretionary extension.

Weighing all of the above factors, the Court is not persuaded that exercising its discretion to grant an extension to effectuate service on the AZ Defendants is warranted. Moreover, in addition to the factors counseling against an extension, the Court’s conclusion is further supported by Plaintiffs’ failure to provide an explanation as to why they did not timely serve the AZ Defendants.6 c. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown that the AZ Defendants Waived their Defense to Untimely Service Plaintiffs generally assert that the AZ Defendants waived any defense related to untimely service by virtue of their conduct in this MDL litigation. Plaintiffs argue that dismissal of their The AZ Defendants also argue that because Plaintiffs did not address their reasons for untimely service (and instead relied chiefly on arguments concerning waiver), Plaintiffs’ reply to CMO 65 failed to comply with a court order, requiring dismissal of their cases on that independent basis.

See, e.g., No. 19-cv-04209, ECF No. 10 at 6. The AZ Defendants cite certain Poulis factors to support this argument. Id. at 10. As explained above, the Court has considered Plaintiffs’ lack of an explanation in its discussion of Rule 4(m) and discretionary extensions. claims against the AZ Defendants is inappropriate in those cases where (1) the AZ Defendants filed a motion to dismiss without raising service; (2) the AZ Defendants either filed an answer without raising service or answered before service; or (3) the AZ Defendants manifested some intention to defend the case through the AZ Defendants’ conduct. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp. at § IV.B; Lopez Resp. at § IV.B. For the below reasons, the Court finds that the AZ Defendants have not waived their defense to untimely service.

The Court first turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that the AZ Defendants waived their defense to lack of service in those cases where the AZ Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for purported failure to comply with the tolling agreement without specifically raising the defense. However, the AZ Defendants did not raise service in their motions to dismiss because an alternate procedure, proposed and agreed upon by the parties, was set forth in a stipulated court order, with their defenses expressly preserved by CMO No. 7. See CMO No. 7, ECF No. 112, at 7 (“Defendants also reserve all rights to move to dismiss . . . under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule[] 12.

Defendants shall only be permitted to file said motions to dismiss subject to leave of this Court.”).

CMO No. 7 thus expressly restricted defendants from moving to dismiss individual plaintiffs under Rule 12 absent leave of this Court. Indeed, the federal rules bar a defendant from later moving to dismiss for insufficient service of process only when the party “could have raised these objections in their [earlier] motion to dismiss the complaint.” Denkins v. William Penn Sch. Dist., No. 20- 02228, 2020 WL 5880132, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2020); accord Wright & Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1391 (“If one or more of these defenses are omitted from the initial motion but were ‘then available’ to the movant, they are permanently lost.”). In filing their authorized dismissal motions pursuant to the tolling agreement and CMO No. 7, the AZ Defendants did not have leave to raise any other defense, including insufficient service as to a particular case. Having understood and agreed that such motions were to be deferred to a later date and with leave of the Court, it is not correct that the AZ Defendants, or any other defendant, waived their defense of service by failing to argue it in their motions to dismiss related to purported violations of the tolling agreement.

Plaintiffs’ next argument—that the AZ Defendants waived service either by filing an answer without raising service or by answering before service—is similarly unavailing. Plaintiffs assert that, as a general matter, waiver of service may occur where a defendant files an answer as its first responsive pleading and the answer fails to plead the defense. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp. at 7, 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that there are three potential scenarios where service has been waived by answer. First, Plaintiffs claim that in any case where the AZ Defendants filed a short form answer, service was waived because the short form answer simply incorporated the AZ Defendants’ initial long form answer. This, Plaintiffs maintain, is because the long form answer did not assert the defense of lack of service. See, e.g., id. at 14. Second, since a defendant’s notice of appearance in a specific case may serve as a short form answer, see Case Management Order No. 27 (ECF No. 265), Plaintiffs contend that a notice of appearance after service is functionally the same as a short form answer—it incorporates the long form answer, which does not assert the defense of lack of service. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that a notice of appearance before service waives this defense under the terms of Case Management Order No. 27 for cases filed after September 24, 2018. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp. at 8; see also CMO No. 27, at § 1.A.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ individual submissions here do not assert that the AZ Defendants filed a short form answer in any of their cases, and the dockets confirm no such short form answers exist. See, e.g., Lucerne Resp., Ex. A; Lopez Resp., Ex. A; see generally No. 2:19- cv-04209; No. 2:18-cv-04494. Plaintiffs’ first argument is thus inapplicable to the cases listed in Exhibit A. Similarly, for the cases which are subject to CMO No. 27’s provision that a notice of appearance before service waives the defense (i.e., cases filed on or after September 24, 2018), the dockets clearly reflect that, to the extent the AZ Defendants filed a Notice of Appearance, it was not until after service was (untimely) effected on them and after the entry of CMO 65. This leaves the Plaintiffs whose individual submissions assert the AZ Defendants filed a notice of appearance after service, which, they argue, waived the AZ Defendants’ untimely service defense because those notices incorporated the long form answer without further raising such a defense. However, as discussed above, at that point, the AZ Defendants had specifically “reserve[d] all rights to move to dismiss … under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule[] 12” when they (and Plaintiffs) agreed to CMO No. 7. CMO No. 7 at § G. Accordingly, the Court concludes that by filing a notice of appearance in a case in which the AZ Defendants had plainly reserved their right to challenge service, that notice of appearance did not negate the prior reservation and thereby waive the defense.7 Plaintiffs’ final argument on waiver is that the AZ Defendants waived their defense of service through their conduct in the PPI litigation either as a whole or in individual cases. In support of their argument as to the AZ Defendants’ conduct in the litigation as a whole, Plaintiffs rely on In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-5944, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78902 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014). In that case, certain defendants raised their Rule 12(b)(5) defense to service in a consolidated motion to dismiss, but subsequently abandoned that 12(b)(5) motion in a later filing and then continued to participate in litigation for four years. The court found that under these circumstances those defendants had waived their defense of lack of service. Id. at *84-

88. The case is inapposite, however, as the AZ Defendants never previously raised—and subsequently abandoned—the defense of service in any of the cases identified here, and indeed was unable to without leave of the Court under CMO No. 7, as agreed to by the parties. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ reliance on In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 247 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016), is misplaced. There, the plaintiff’s timely but defective service on the defendant’s prior (and thus incorrect) address combined with the defendant’s actions in participating in the litigation (including attending MDL status conferences in which the particular case was discussed and waiting until after the statute of limitations had expired before moving to dismiss the complaint for lack of service) contributed to the plaintiff being “lulled into believing it had effectively served” the defendant. Id. at 250. The court thus found that the defendant’s conduct justified the court’s exercising its discretion to extend the time for service, but, importantly, the court did not find that the defendant had waived its defense. Id. at 48-50.

Plaintiffs here have not asserted that they timely served the AZ Defendants at the wrong address or were otherwise lulled into thinking that they had in fact properly served the AZ Defendants before CMO No. 65 was entered. Therefore, neither In re CRT nor In re MTBE justifies Plaintiffs’ argument.

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ general response argues that the AZ Defendants waived their defense of service by participating in the litigation of individual cases, citing In re: Ethicon, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00758, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148765 (S.D.W.V. Oct. 27, 2016). But there, the defendants acknowledged receipt of a plaintiff profile form, requested additional information from the plaintiffs regarding their claims, and threatened to pursue a remedy in court if the plaintiff did not comply with their request. Id. at *6. By contrast, none of the Plaintiffs in the 1,181 cases herein claim that they received a deficiency letter related to their Plaintiff Fact Sheet, or that the AZ Defendants threatened to pursue a judicial remedy if the plaintiff did not cure the deficiency. In short, unlike in the Ethicon case, none of these Plaintiffs has demonstrated that the AZ Defendants have meaningfully participated in the litigation in their particular case. Further, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ suggestion to impute the AZ Defendants’ conduct in defending themselves in cases not subject to CMO No. 65 to suggest that the AZ Defendants waived their defense of service of process in the specific cases identified in Exhibit A hereto.

Plaintiffs also assert that the AZ Defendants have waited too long to assert their defense of service. Plaintiffs rely on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in King v. Taylor; however, in that case, unlike here, the defendant actively litigated the case by, among other things, filing a joint Rule 26(f) report, participating in depositions, seeking to extend discovery deadlines, and joining in a status report in that particular case, and only moved to dismiss for lack of service at the summary judgment stage. King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650, 659-61 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, however, none of the 1,181 cases identified in Exhibit A is a Bellwether case or a Wave case and thus the AZ Defendants have not participated in discovery in the individual cases like the defendant in Taylor did. Further, as noted previously, stipulated CMO No. 7 precluded the AZ Defendants from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of service without leave of the Court.

IV. Conclusion CMO No. 65 required Plaintiffs to (1) show they timely served the AZ Defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m), (2) dismiss the AZ Defendants from their case, or (3) show cause why this Court should not dismiss the AZ Defendants from their cases. Plaintiffs whose cases are on Exhibit A have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating good cause for failure to comply with CMO No. and effectuate timely service, and have failed to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion not to dismiss the AZ Defendants from their cases. Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions and orders the AZ Defendants to be dismissed without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A.® Accordingly, ITIS on this 24 _ day of April, 2023; ORDERED that the AZ Defendants shall be DISMISSED without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto.

SO ORDERED. CA. ; CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

To the extent Plaintiffs in the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto have raised in their briefing any arguments not expressly addressed herein, the Court has considered and rejected them.

230 2:18-cv-05152 Butler, Deceased Glenda Mays 2:18-cv-05153 Kathryn Caban 2:18-cv-05155 Christine Scott 2:18-cv-05158 Crystal Henson 2:18-cv-05160 David McMillen 2:18-cv-05161 Clara Singleton 2:18-cv-05162 Timothy Carter 2:18-cv-05163 Barbara Lambert and Paul Lambert 2:18-cv-05164 Phillip Tavegia 2:18-cv-05165 Sarah Mitchell 2:18-cv-05166 Charlotte Means 2:18-cv-05167 Richard Moran 2:18-cv-05170 Frederick Nickerson 2:18-cv-05171 Diane Murphy 2:18-cv-05174 Glenn Nemecek 2:18-cv-05177 Margorie Walker 2:18-cv-05178 Ruth Williamson 2:18-cv-05179 Harold E. Rakestraw 2:18-cv-05183 Linda Smith 2:18-cv-05186 Caroline Weatherton 2:18-cv-05189 Janie Wright 2:18-cv-05190 Marisha Miller 2:18-cv-05191 Melinda McMillen and Lawrence R. McMillen 2:18-cv-05194 Louanna Dunlap 2:18-cv-05195 Nancy Miller 2:18-cv-05197 George Hansen 2:18-cv-05198 Dwight Smith 2:18-cv-05202 Freddie Johnson 2:18-cv-05205 Rebecca Johnston 2:18-cv-05206 Alfred Vargas 2:18-cv-05207 Deanna Lacy 2:18-cv-05208 Terry Rasmussen 2:18-cv-05209 Barbara Manuel 2:18-cv-05212 Norma Williams 2:18-cv-05213 Teresa Byers 2:18-cv-05431 Adrian Nagy 2:18-cv-05432 Anthony Richardson 2:18-cv-05434 Rosemary Lehr 2:18-cv-05437 Donald Gibson 2:18-cv-05438 Lindell Shelby 2:18-cv-05439 Susan Miller 2:18-cv-05441 William Wade 2:18-cv-05449 Darrell Craw 2:18-cv-05454 Gerald Whatley 2:18-cv-05455 Joseph Cervantes 2:18-cv-05456 Sherry Hunt 2:18-cv-05457 Kit Middleton 2:18-cv-05461 Sandra Garrett 2:18-cv-05463 Hilda Johnson 2:18-cv-05464 Tony Hernandez 2:18-cv-05472 Bryan Swanson 2:18-cv-05476 Pamela Clark 2:18-cv-05478 Melvin Stubbs 2:18-cv-05479 Brett Timothy 2:18-cv-05481 Linda M. Williams 2:18-cv-05482 Cecelia Clipper 2:18-cv-05483 Jennifer Wolfe 2:18-cv-05485 Catherine Farrell 2:18-cv-05487 Sharon Powers 2:18-cv-05488 Arthur Warshawsky 2:18-cv-05490 Martha Burns 2:18-cv-05495 Gary Robertson 2:18-cv-05499 Kyle Rose 2:18-cv-05500 Margie Jennings 2:18-cv-05501 Rickey Crihfield, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Miki L.

297 2:18-cv-05502 Crihfield, deceased Jeffrey Jones 2:18-cv-05504 Deborah Lee 2:18-cv-05507 Ellen Moritt 2:18-cv-05509 Burma Sizemore 2:18-cv-05511 Bob Hoover 2:18-cv-05513 Carmen Stevens 2:18-cv-05516 Samantha Lawson 2:18-cv-05520 Shirley Teel, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Ezra C. Teel, 305 2:18-cv-05521 Deceased Margie Delauder 2:18-cv-05526 Brenda Bunch 2:18-cv-05942 Richard Cannon 2:18-cv-05947 Melissa Curry 2:18-cv-05952 Brenda Dye 2:18-cv-05956 Sheryl Gerald 2:18-cv-05959 Cedric Florence 2:18-cv-05960 Dennis Lane 2:18-cv-05962 Marsha Layman 2:18-cv-05964 Joyce Noble 2:18-cv-05968 Samantha Riddle 2:18-cv-05971 Richard Slate 2:18-cv-05973 Deceased 2:18-cv-05976 William Taylor 2:18-cv-05977 Janet Washington 2:18-cv-05978 George Hawkins 2:18-cv-05980 Dana Wilson 2:18-cv-05982 Michael Longacre 2:18-cv-05988 Linda Martin 2:18-cv-05989 Debra O'Neal 2:18-cv-05993 Elnora Pope 2:18-cv-05995 Susan Reedy 2:18-cv-05996 Debbie Reynolds 2:18-cv-05997 Lacy Skinner 2:18-cv-06000 Linda Wilson 2:18-cv-06002 Brenda Young 2:18-cv-06003 Kathryn Anderson 2:18-cv-06134 Larry Basham and Linda Basham 2:18-cv-06138 Mary Hollander 2:18-cv-06148 Lance Faulkner 2:18-cv-06154 Christina Ford 2:18-cv-06157 Ruby Brake 2:18-cv-06161 Sharon Reid 2:18-cv-06164 Jimmy Brown 2:18-cv-06165 Bartholomew Gaiera and Karen Gaiera 2:18-cv-06166 Gregry Russell 2:18-cv-06169 Kathlene Brown 2:18-cv-06171 Sarah Brown 2:18-cv-06175 Sonjia Short 2:18-cv-06177 Donald Silas 2:18-cv-06180 Rita Bentley 2:18-cv-06184 Rebecca Harrington 2:18-cv-06196 Linda Buie 2:18-cv-06198 Patricia Hasty 2:18-cv-06202 John Copp 2:18-cv-06204 Sherry Davis 2:18-cv-06206 Garry Jackson 2:18-cv-06207 Richard Jackson and Judy Fontenot 2:18-cv-06214 John Whatley 2:18-cv-06216 Eugene Johnson 2:18-cv-06222 Beverly Elgan 2:18-cv-06223 Susan Downs 2:18-cv-06224 Cardell Woodard 2:18-cv-06225 Sharon Farris 2:18-cv-06227 Junita Horn 2:18-cv-06231 Bonnie Mize 2:18-cv-06232 Jackie Knight 2:18-cv-06233 Richard Leonard 2:18-cv-06244 Karla Lee 2:18-cv-06245 Theodore Logan, Jr. 2:18-cv-06250 Sonja Prince 2:18-cv-06251 Belinda Holland 2:18-cv-06253 Tunya Lowe 2:18-cv-06256 Steve Thompson 2:18-cv-06260 Dorothy Van Horn 2:18-cv-06264 Sandra Walling 2:18-cv-06268 Marlene McIntyre 2:18-cv-06270 Michael Wetselline 2:18-cv-06271 Patina Johnson 2:18-cv-06274 Billy Largen and Donna Brown 2:18-cv-06278 Lillian Paxton 2:18-cv-06284 Bob Russom 2:18-cv-06288 Susan White, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Eugene 381 2:18-cv-06432 Kujawski, Deceased Johnny Daniels 2:18-cv-06440 Emilee Palmer and Michael D. Palmer 2:18-cv-06449 Mary Nordby, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Joan Jackson, 384 2:18-cv-06450 Deceased Tina Thornburg 2:18-cv-06456 Ennis Dunning 2:18-cv-06460 Marsha Graham, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Gary 387 2:18-cv-06467 Graham, Deceased Kevin Harper 2:18-cv-06473 Travis Charlton, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia 389 2:18-cv-06476 Halbert, Deceased Ima Young and Hollis Young-Wheely 2:18-cv-06480 Lesa Honn, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 391 2:18-cv-06481 Leonard Honn, Deceased Teresa Alvarez, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 392 2:18-cv-06484 of Thomas Alvarez, Deceased Rosie Alvarez, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 393 2:18-cv-06488 Urbano Alvarez, Deceased Nina Fernandez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Sanra Nobil, 394 2:18-cv-06497 Deceased Bradley Olson and Shirley Olson 2:18-cv-06498 Bernice Haley, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 396 2:18-cv-06504 of Dennis Ray Haley, Deceased Jerry Blosser, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 397 2:18-cv-06515 Wanda Blosser, Deceased Norma Stillwagoner 2:18-cv-06520 Debbie Edgell, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 399 2:18-cv-06521 of Jackie Edgell, Deceased of Larry Keenan, Deceased 2:18-cv-06522 Shirley Morton, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 401 2:18-cv-06527 of Delbert P Morton Sr., Deceased James McDade, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Laverne 402 2:18-cv-06528 McDade, Deceased Gina Zerby, Individually and as the Proposed Representative of Michael 403 2:18-cv-06532 Zerby, Deceased Lillian Paxton, Individually and as Proposed Representatie of the Estate of 404 2:18-cv-06533 John Paxton, Deceased Michelle Wilson 2:18-cv-06540 Rita Johnson, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lessie Tharpe, 406 2:18-cv-06549 Deceased Emily Knotts, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cheryl Stefenel, 407 2:18-cv-06552 Deceased William Cavanaugh and Margaret Cavanaugh 2:18-cv-06791 Julie Cross 2:18-cv-06800 Jacquelyn Booker 2:18-cv-06834 Dianne Caldwell 2:18-cv-06846 Brenda Cameron 2:18-cv-06854 Leona Collins, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 413 2:18-cv-06869 Deniese Collins, Deceased Patrick Connors 2:18-cv-06876 Larry Ludwick 2:18-cv-06937 Gladys Maddox 2:18-cv-06939 Frank Rendon 2:18-cv-06940 Johnnie Oliver 2:18-cv-06947 Charles Jones, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Victoria Jones, 419 2:18-cv-06952 Deceased John Cole 2:18-cv-06962 Helen Robinson 2:18-cv-06963 Dorothy Alegria, As the Representative of the Estate of Edwin Alegria, 422 2:18-cv-06966 deceased Charles Howard 2:18-cv-06986 Luvern Purnell 2:18-cv-06997 Amy Qualles 2:18-cv-07001 Teresa Hill-Ibrahim 2:18-cv-07005 Barbara Burger 2:18-cv-07027 Kathy Lockhart 2:18-cv-07032 Dionna McGairk 2:18-cv-07043 Vertis Kellam 2:18-cv-07048 Judy Bradshaw, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 431 2:18-cv-07049 Jimmy Bradshaw, Deceased Richard Oyerbides, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 432 2:18-cv-07052 Rebecca Mobley, Deceased Shane Kilgore 2:18-cv-07057 Virginia Boyd 2:18-cv-07090 Carl Evans Jr. and Carolyn Evans 2:18-cv-07106 Herman Firmin 2:18-cv-07110 Cornelius Bentley Sr. 2:18-cv-07112 Herbert Johnson 2:18-cv-07130 Joan Stoveken, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Gay 441 2:18-cv-07137 Stoveken, Deceased Angela Spicer, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 442 2:18-cv-07148 James Spicer, Deceased Amanda Turner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 443 2:18-cv-07153 Ronald Turner, Deceased Christopher Crittenden 2:18-cv-07154 Jessie Darby, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 445 2:18-cv-07156 Donnie Darby, Deceased Malissa Wilson 2:18-cv-07170 Erick Barnes 2:18-cv-07187 John Norton 2:18-cv-07192 Tammy Perry 2:18-cv-07194 Brenda Fletcher 2:18-cv-07203 Nancy Esque 2:18-cv-07208 Kathleen King 2:18-cv-07228 Robert Brown 2:18-cv-07234 Diane McGee, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kevin 454 2:18-cv-07239 McGee, Deceased Mary Laffoon 2:18-cv-07243 George Gale 2:18-cv-07267 Clarence Abrams 2:18-cv-07270 Bonnie Apple 2:18-cv-07287 Helen Cannon 2:18-cv-07302 Sharon Ayers-Johnson 2:18-cv-07313 Olivia Hogan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 461 2:18-cv-07319 Maggie Harrison, Deceased Brenda Bell 2:18-cv-07333 Thomas Russo 2:18-cv-07340 Forest Moore 2:18-cv-07351 Paul Lue, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Hyacinth 465 2:18-cv-07352 Johnson, Deceased Ernestine Mays-Mitchell, Individually and as the Representative of the 466 2:18-cv-07365 Estate of Ernest Mays, Deceased Clarence Rich 2:18-cv-07373 Cynthia Stapleton 2:18-cv-07381 Alice Williams 2:18-cv-07390 Birdie Woods 2:18-cv-07438 Lynette Tucker 2:18-cv-07441 Mary Murphy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 472 2:18-cv-07450 Douglas Dennison 2:18-cv-07488 Kathleen White 2:18-cv-07501 Shirley Newsome 2:18-cv-07503 Lloyd Fleenor 2:18-cv-07515 Jamie Morgan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 478 2:18-cv-07526 Bernard Morgan, Deceased Cecelia Roberts 2:18-cv-07534 Tammy Taylor 2:18-cv-07538 Bessie Madden 2:18-cv-07541 Frank Tropier, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Irene 482 2:18-cv-07544 Tropier, Deceased Deborah King, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Eva 483 2:18-cv-07550 Manley, Deceased Curtis Blankenship 2:18-cv-07553 Betty Apellido 2:18-cv-07557 Ora Groves 2:18-cv-07590 Gloria Dietrich 2:18-cv-07592 Robin Eden 2:18-cv-07613 Walker Howell 2:18-cv-07616 Stephanie Ralston-Bailey 2:18-cv-07617 Laura Richie 2:18-cv-07622 Regina Salisbury 2:18-cv-07632 Marlene Hatfield 2:18-cv-07639 Caren Singer 2:18-cv-07640 Randall Morton 2:18-cv-07662 Sharon Nali 2:18-cv-07667 Irvin Albright 2:18-cv-07669 Mary Ann Negrete, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 498 2:18-cv-07671 Hiram Negrete, Deceased William Solis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Aura 499 2:18-cv-07688 Burgos, Deceased Ronald Klinenberg 2:18-cv-07706 Linda Weller, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 501 2:18-cv-07707 Marjorie Beecher, Deceased Luis Nesta 2:18-cv-07708 Lorraine Turco 2:18-cv-07713 Delorise Marks 2:18-cv-07716 Mildred Hernandez, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 505 2:18-cv-07724 Charles Varela, Deceased Hazel Phillips 2:18-cv-07748 Elvia Quiroga, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 507 2:18-cv-07751 Pedro Quiroga, Deceased Tracie Powers 2:18-cv-07756 Mary Rivali, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Robert 509 2:18-cv-07760 Rivali, Deceased Evelyn Sullivan, Deceased 2:18-cv-07781 Bernadine Hardie 2:18-cv-07795 Peter Guerrero 2:18-cv-07796 Delisha Thomas 2:18-cv-07801 Joel Neidlinger 2:18-cv-07833 Deanna Shafer 2:18-cv-07851 Michael Barnett 2:19-cv-01055 Susan Hageman, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack 518 2:19-cv-01584 Hageman, Deceased Dennis Kendall 2:19-cv-01668 Quintin Dennis 2:19-cv-01813 Ruth Dobson 2:19-cv-01849 Martha Griffith 2:19-cv-01853 William Hall 2:19-cv-01859 Gloria Haywood 2:19-cv-01881 James Amato 2:19-cv-01883 Ruth Hurd 2:19-cv-01887 Eric Hurwitz 2:19-cv-01889 Patricia Joppien 2:19-cv-01897 Paul Jozwiak 2:19-cv-01902 Ethel Birch 2:19-cv-01914 Michele Blomont 2:19-cv-01923 George Bonis 2:19-cv-01931 Raymond Bryant 2:19-cv-01939 John Bottoms 2:19-cv-01945 Cindy Campbell 2:19-cv-01948 Colleen Cantwell 2:19-cv-01965 Janis Carlton, Individually and as the Representative fo the Estate of 537 2:19-cv-01976 Arland Carlton Jr., Deceased Gladys Carpenter 2:19-cv-01981 Pete Caudillo 2:19-cv-01990 Brandon Cole 2:19-cv-02004 Robert Crenshaw 2:19-cv-02011 Wanda Crager 2:19-cv-02012 Jason Daniels 2:19-cv-02015 Linda McMillen 2:19-cv-02035 Odessa Mitchell 2:19-cv-02040 Patricia Mitchell 2:19-cv-02048 Charles Newsom 2:19-cv-02050 Orestes Diaz 2:19-cv-02059 Helmut Otto 2:19-cv-02061 Charlotte Edgar 2:19-cv-02074 Carey Bowie, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Henry 551 2:19-cv-02086 Bowie, Deceased William Elias 2:19-cv-02089 Margarita Cantu, Deceased 2:19-cv-02104 Juanita Landers 2:19-cv-02127 Johnny Fritts 2:19-cv-02128 Karen Gaines 2:19-cv-02136 Brenda McCurdy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 558 2:19-cv-02143 Rickey McCurdy, Deceased Gloria Hernandez 2:19-cv-02147 Cynthia McDonald, As the representative of the Estate of Helen 560 2:19-cv-02157 McDonald, deceased Bridgette Long 2:19-cv-02159 Nettie Overton, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 562 2:19-cv-02174 Charlie Overton, Deceased Glenda Long 2:19-cv-02175 Melissa Olson 2:19-cv-02204 Sandra Pannell 2:19-cv-02246 Priscille Parent 2:19-cv-02261 Lucretia Peavy 2:19-cv-02275 Mabel Perry 2:19-cv-02318 Glenna Pool 2:19-cv-02335 Debra Primrose 2:19-cv-02356 Margaret Pryor, As the Representative of the Estate of Keith Pryor, 571 2:19-cv-02367 deceased Joyce Sheffield 2:19-cv-02377 Terry Sheffield 2:19-cv-02386 Esther Rangel, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 574 2:19-cv-02404 Armando Rangel, Deceased Henry Shuster 2:19-cv-02445 John Silva 2:19-cv-02454 Lionel Smith 2:19-cv-02464 Linda Stockwell 2:19-cv-02475 Diane Watkins 2:19-cv-02484 James Williams 2:19-cv-02487 Charles Wiley 2:19-cv-02493 Darwin Valentine 2:19-cv-02547 Linda Wood 2:19-cv-02562 Susan Lynn Wright, Individually and as the Representatie of the Estate of 584 2:19-cv-02577 Tabitha Wright, Deceased Denise Brown 2:19-cv-02581 Donna Wooten 2:19-cv-02586 Andra Henderson 2:19-cv-02743 Darryl Herod 2:19-cv-02748 Michael Prilla 2:19-cv-02955 John Choyce 2:19-cv-02988 Cheryl Adams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Belle Collins, 591 2:19-cv-02996 Deceased Carla Comer 2:19-cv-03073 Leota Conrad 2:19-cv-03075 John Covell 2:19-cv-03078 Cynthia Etheridge 2:19-cv-03118 Nancy Fennell 2:19-cv-03132 Nellie Ferguson 2:19-cv-03137 Treva Graves 2:19-cv-03142 Terry Haynes 2:19-cv-03163 Bertha Gable 2:19-cv-03165 Georgia Jackson-Wade 2:19-cv-03193 Rhonda Gomez 2:19-cv-03217 Kevin Goss 2:19-cv-03252 Paula Jones 2:19-cv-03256 Merle Kirkland 2:19-cv-03272 Mark Lacombe 2:19-cv-03277 Dennis Lacy 2:19-cv-03284 Lisa Peters 2:19-cv-03312 Shelia Holmes 2:19-cv-03327 Edward Miller 2:19-cv-03340 Brandon Hugghins 2:19-cv-03366 Sylvia Perez 2:19-cv-03368 Linda Phillips 2:19-cv-03376 Michelle Inman 2:19-cv-03391 Charlene Jackson 2:19-cv-03415 Brenda Ridyolph 2:19-cv-03419 Paula Jackson 2:19-cv-03433 Sandi Robinson 2:19-cv-03435 Wanda Rogers 2:19-cv-03445 Barbara Steele 2:19-cv-03458 Bettye Stockton 2:19-cv-03467 Erick Joe 2:19-cv-03476 Nancy Sullivan 2:19-cv-03477 Shirley Swope 2:19-cv-03480 Cynthia Tucker 2:19-cv-03489 Shirlie Johnson 2:19-cv-03494 Dante Wilder 2:19-cv-03508 Moses Willmore 2:19-cv-03520 Lidia Yanez 2:19-cv-03524 Ronald E. Ker 2:19-cv-03528 Karen Collins, As proposed representative of the Estate of Charles Collins, 633 2:19-cv-03537 deceased Carolyn Coule and Jerome Coule 2:19-cv-03544 Joel Kight 2:19-cv-03545 Rosetta Cunningham 2:19-cv-03553 Helen Davis 2:19-cv-03561 Rickie Swonger, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Joyce Boyer, 640 2:19-cv-03596 Deceased Carl Brewer, Jr. 2:19-cv-03605 Lowanda Ford, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of William Ford, 642 2:19-cv-03612 Deceased Phillip Cottle 2:19-cv-03618 Linda Fresquez 2:19-cv-03624 Timothy Buzard 2:19-cv-03626 Diana Greathouse 2:19-cv-03633 Lena Turknett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Gaines, 647 2:19-cv-03636 Deceased Suzanne Coleman-Cunningham 2:19-cv-03638 Maria Garcia 2:19-cv-03644 Betty Hunter, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 650 2:19-cv-03645 Thomas Hunter, Deceased Noreen Davis-Xanthis 2:19-cv-03646 Harrison Gift, III 2:19-cv-03651 Juanita Mekwuye 2:19-cv-03652 Lucille Dunson 2:19-cv-03661 Bernadette Green 2:19-cv-03662 Barbara Zajack 2:19-cv-03663 Ruthie Griffin 2:19-cv-03670 Melba Fabel 2:19-cv-03671 Jennifer Collins 2:19-cv-03679 Cecile Fichtner 2:19-cv-03681 Melissa Harris 2:19-cv-03684 Tracy Henderson 2:19-cv-03685 Linwood Flemister 2:19-cv-03686 Kathlene Henson and Ernest Henson 2:19-cv-03687 Elizabeth Flournoy 2:19-cv-03697 Cathleen James 2:19-cv-03707 James Franklin, Sr. 2:19-cv-03711 Cyndi Mazza, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Josephine 668 2:19-cv-03716 Kempf, Deceased Cynthia Lawhorn 2:19-cv-03739 Adeline Henderson 2:19-cv-03769 Linda Martinez 2:19-cv-03777 Lynell Johnson 2:19-cv-03784 Michael Jones 2:19-cv-03806 Cara Kreider 2:19-cv-03817 Stephen McNeill 2:19-cv-03823 Richard Lombardo 2:19-cv-03826 Linda Metcalf 2:19-cv-03836 Matilde Lopez 2:19-cv-03839 Kathleen Mirarchi 2:19-cv-03841 Melissa Konarski, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 682 2:19-cv-03869 Pamela Zaccardi, Deceased Patty Anderson 2:19-cv-03889 Kevin Takacs 2:19-cv-03921 Patricia E. Thomas 2:19-cv-03980 Brandon Ward 2:19-cv-03987 Darren Williams 2:19-cv-04012 Belinda Laird 2:19-cv-04031 Robert Williams 2:19-cv-04036 Gaye Young 2:19-cv-04050 Julie Long 2:19-cv-04094 Fidencio Lopez 2:19-cv-04111 Anita Loudy 2:19-cv-04113 Harold Martin 2:19-cv-04125 Fernando Martinez, Jr. 2:19-cv-04130 Sandra Detherage 2:19-cv-04133 Carol Rosenblum 2:19-cv-04146 Linda Barnett 2:19-cv-04152 Bernice Elkins, As the Representative of the Estate of Chilles Elkins, 699 2:19-cv-04161 Deceased Susan Payne 2:19-cv-04162 Keith Ellery 2:19-cv-04166 Kerry Bland 2:19-cv-04178 Denise Garrette 2:19-cv-04188 Josette Schaffer 2:19-cv-04192 Barbara Grant 2:19-cv-04197 Lynn Seabrook 2:19-cv-04198 Mary C. Smith 2:19-cv-04202 John Danso, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Vickie 708 2:19-cv-04204 Danso, Deceased Rachel Smith 2:19-cv-04207 Lawrence Lucerne 2:19-cv-04209 Rickey E. Vice 2:19-cv-04211 Sandra Mason 2:19-cv-04218 Cheryl Woody 2:19-cv-04223 Beverly McCaleb 2:19-cv-04224 Veda McDonald-Rhodes, Individually and as the Representative of the 715 2:19-cv-04228 Estate of Andre McDonald, Deceased Joanne Smith 2:19-cv-04234 Lee Spaulding 2:19-cv-04238 Diane Wood 2:19-cv-04242 Marvin Edwards 2:19-cv-04248 John Mangum 2:19-cv-04263 Robert McKim 2:19-cv-04266 Paul Shrode 2:19-cv-04267 Nicholson, Deceased 2:19-cv-04276 Robert C. Lopez 2:19-cv-04342 Mary Burchett 2:19-cv-04470 Greg Cadjew 2:19-cv-04473 Anabel Campbell 2:19-cv-04485 Clarice Boutin 2:19-cv-04486 Joanna E. Campbell 2:19-cv-04492 Quinten W. Bowen 2:19-cv-04497 Michael Bowen 2:19-cv-04503 Cathleen A. Brooks 2:19-cv-04504 Don Burleson-Castillo 2:19-cv-04505 Terri L. Banfield 2:19-cv-04506 Lisa Brookshire 2:19-cv-04510 Melinda J. Burns 2:19-cv-04515 Catherine Antwine 2:19-cv-04516 Roy D. Burress 2:19-cv-04517 Jackie L. Brown 2:19-cv-04518 Joseph A. Archer 2:19-cv-04519 Margie T. Bannister 2:19-cv-04528 Danny Asti 2:19-cv-04534 Leta Bannon 2:19-cv-04535 Janice Weibley, on behalf of Elizabeth L. Boyd 2:19-cv-04537 Cassandra Bell 2:19-cv-04548 Debra Bramblett 2:19-cv-04561 Douglas Ball 2:19-cv-04572 Laquiche L. Benjamin 2:19-cv-04573 Brent Bregan 2:19-cv-04574 Sharon L. Bennett 2:19-cv-04580 Charita R. Brown 2:19-cv-04586 Johnny Brown 2:19-cv-04592 Todd Brown 2:19-cv-04595 Yvonne Abrams 2:19-cv-04617 Lisa D. Binder 2:19-cv-04628 Ricky W. Barley 2:19-cv-04629 Candy J. Bryant 2:19-cv-04630 Tammie Y. Cheatham 2:19-cv-04634 Charles A. Biondillo 2:19-cv-04643 Dennis Bunch 2:19-cv-04650 Sherman Bunnell 2:19-cv-04653 Ruth Cassidy 2:19-cv-04664 Lisa Jo Albright 2:19-cv-04674 Brian D. Alexander 2:19-cv-04680 Josephine Basey 2:19-cv-04681 Damisha L. Bishop 2:19-cv-04684 Joe Alfieri 2:19-cv-04690 Sylvia J. Cotton 2:19-cv-04709 Gerald E. Coyle 2:19-cv-04719 Alice Baxter 2:19-cv-04722 Joe Bean 2:19-cv-04730 Jackie Crawford 2:19-cv-04734 Ruth V. Cleveland 2:19-cv-04735 Anna Gonzalez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Beatrice Ceja, 776 2:19-cv-04750 Deceased Derrick A. Cloud 2:19-cv-04756 Sharon Brewer 2:19-cv-04761 Etta M. Brewer 2:19-cv-04762 Tiena Britt 2:19-cv-04773 Joe Dehart 2:19-cv-04776 Jose Deleon 2:19-cv-04781 Twila M. Dillon 2:19-cv-04790 Richard Dismuke 2:19-cv-04792 Larry Cole 2:19-cv-04798 Joel Chapa 2:19-cv-04810 Leif E. Anderson 2:19-cv-04821 Mary Eddy 2:19-cv-04825 Dora Chatman 2:19-cv-04826 Stephen Eaton 2:19-cv-04829 David A. Ealy 2:19-cv-04837 Jack Cunningham 2:19-cv-04844 Clara C. Dacko 2:19-cv-04848 Linda Duffy 2:19-cv-04862 Jean C. Darby 2:19-cv-04878 Tina Dasher 2:19-cv-04882 Mark A. Anderson 2:19-cv-04883 Arnada F. Davis 2:19-cv-04906 Jamie Davis 2:19-cv-04907 Augusta L. Colson 2:19-cv-04909 John Elliott 2:19-cv-04913 David Andrews 2:19-cv-04914 Deborah K. Elmer 2:19-cv-04918 Lori A. Enos 2:19-cv-04925 Adela Anguiano 2:19-cv-04927 Troy Ersch 2:19-cv-04932 Theresa Cooper 2:19-cv-04939 Doris Crutchfield 2:19-cv-04944 Kevin Carr 2:19-cv-04950 Letrell Cuff 2:19-cv-04951 Robbin Carridine 2:19-cv-04952 Catherine Carroll 2:19-cv-04960 Lula M. Day 2:19-cv-04961 John Fry 2:19-cv-04976 Angela Clinton 2:19-cv-04981 Pat J. Evans 2:19-cv-04986 Cynthia Bonacci 2:19-cv-04994 Robin Fizhugh 2:19-cv-05006 Joyce Carvalho 2:19-cv-05016 Calvin Carver 2:19-cv-05022 Sherley L. Booker 2:19-cv-05027 Lee Booth 2:19-cv-05052 Albert V. Borboa 2:19-cv-05053 Evelyn W. Frey 2:19-cv-05069 Mary Duncan 2:19-cv-05072 Mary Jane Franklin 2:19-cv-05073 Gerardo Gallaga 2:19-cv-05089 Libia Felix 2:19-cv-05094 Charlotte Edwards 2:19-cv-05097 Amber N. Felthauser 2:19-cv-05098 Dorthy Edwards 2:19-cv-05099 Jacqualine Ferera 2:19-cv-05102 Beverly Ficklin 2:19-cv-05111 Keith Franklin 2:19-cv-05112 Walter Gaddis 2:19-cv-05115 Matilda Gagliardi 2:19-cv-05119 Barbara S. Foutty 2:19-cv-05132 Debbie A. Garcia 2:19-cv-05135 Sue A. Fink 2:19-cv-05138 Susan K. Kellar 2:19-cv-05166 Robert L. Johnson, Jr. 2:19-cv-05168 Susan K. Kelley 2:19-cv-05174 Timothy Henry 2:19-cv-05177 Angela K. Henry 2:19-cv-05185 David M. Huddleston 2:19-cv-05186 Glenda Jackson 2:19-cv-05193 Bobby G Jones 2:19-cv-05196 Darlene Huettenberger 2:19-cv-05197 Gary D. Johnson 2:19-cv-05199 Vivian Knudsen 2:19-cv-05209 Annie M Jones 2:19-cv-05217 Gordon Hills 2:19-cv-05220 Barbara A. Jones 2:19-cv-05230 Vickie L. Jones 2:19-cv-05242 Ronnie W. Johnson 2:19-cv-05247 Vickie Kemp 2:19-cv-05249 Kathleen F. Kimble 2:19-cv-05263 Michael Hurley 2:19-cv-05267 Donna Hines 2:19-cv-05275 Virginia Johnson Gruver 2:19-cv-05281 Margaret Jordan 2:19-cv-05295 Williard I. Justice 2:19-cv-05304 Jane Krause 2:19-cv-05312 Carol M. Kristian 2:19-cv-05315 Tammy Jobe 2:19-cv-05319 Connie Ivory 2:19-cv-05324 Karen C. King 2:19-cv-05327 Jerry R. Kingery 2:19-cv-05328 Constance Gary 2:19-cv-05335 Henry H. Hessen 2:19-cv-05341 Patrick W. Lacke 2:19-cv-05349 Barton S. Hickey 2:19-cv-05353 Cinda Geerlings 2:19-cv-05359 Pamela Kazak 2:19-cv-05369 David Gilbert 2:19-cv-05370 Romona Kea 2:19-cv-05375 Phyllis j. Kinsey 2:19-cv-05376 Edward W. Gildner 2:19-cv-05379 Lisa Keith 2:19-cv-05385 Deborah Gilstrap 2:19-cv-05387 Marion Francis Keith 2:19-cv-05391 Sue Langham 2:19-cv-05401 William D. Hinshaw 2:19-cv-05415 Mark D. Hochul 2:19-cv-05428 Kathleen Lalor 2:19-cv-05507 Nancy K. Garza 2:19-cv-05528 Richard Graham 2:19-cv-05544 Louise Jones 2:19-cv-05548 June S. Grumbein 2:19-cv-05558 Sarah Holland 2:19-cv-05563 Ronald W. Grissom 2:19-cv-05600 Darren Gines 2:19-cv-05608 Milton E. Hansen, Jr. 2:19-cv-05610 Loyce A. Hampson 2:19-cv-05623 Teresa Haney 2:19-cv-05636 Linda Guzman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Barbara 900 2:19-cv-05649 Guzman, Deceased Connie Gamez 2:19-cv-05652 Jesse Hales 2:19-cv-05697 Paul Glasper 2:19-cv-05699 Shelley M. Harder 2:19-cv-05703 Anne A. Headrick 2:19-cv-05728 Sandra S. Hart 2:19-cv-05731 Verna Heideman 2:19-cv-05750 Derric R. Henderson 2:19-cv-05773 Jason A. Head 2:19-cv-05847 Vanessa Harper 2:19-cv-05850 Jeffrey A Heaps 2:19-cv-05853 Barbara A. Harper 2:19-cv-05864 Rhonda Leopold 2:19-cv-06011 Carol A. Lentz 2:19-cv-06012 Terica Lemon 2:19-cv-06014 Alberta Lee 2:19-cv-06017 Jerry Lawley, Jr. 2:19-cv-06026 Delois Miller 2:19-cv-06069 Gail H. Mills 2:19-cv-06072 Joseph Mirabile 2:19-cv-06078 Barbara Mire 2:19-cv-06079 Berchia M. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06106 Jason R. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06110 Alice Moore 2:19-cv-06123 Linda L. Hopkins 2:19-cv-06152 Kimberly A. Horn 2:19-cv-06160 Veronica C. Williams 2:19-cv-06193 Zane Libert, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Julianna Libert, 930 2:19-cv-06198 deceased Jerry Winthrop 2:19-cv-06213 Joe N. Little 2:19-cv-06225 Betty J. Withrow 2:19-cv-06226 Teena Williams 2:19-cv-06236 Kevin Wilson 2:19-cv-06305 Desiree Lovins 2:19-cv-06323 Robert R. Houser 2:19-cv-06349 Judith Lambert 2:19-cv-06352 Anthony Lanas 2:19-cv-06354 Juliana Wimberly 2:19-cv-06370 Betty Lowther 2:19-cv-06374 Joseph W. Lucas 2:19-cv-06376 Candace M. Malin 2:19-cv-06392 Helen M. Martinez 2:19-cv-06426 Raul Martinez 2:19-cv-06429 Rebecca Meader 2:19-cv-06437 Shekina D. Mason 2:19-cv-06439 Jacobus Mekes 2:19-cv-06443 Sharon W. Mellott, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Jerry 949 2:19-cv-06445 W. Mellott, deceased Deborah Mercer 2:19-cv-06452 Kym Matthews 2:19-cv-06455 Jessie M. Merriweather 2:19-cv-06460 Oliver T. Mihm 2:19-cv-06482 Henry G. Miles 2:19-cv-06486 Lora Wilson 2:19-cv-06490 Alexander J. Mayfield 2:19-cv-06491 Teresa Mayo 2:19-cv-06495 Arlene Miller 2:19-cv-06496 Thelma McClellen 2:19-cv-06520 Brenda McConnachie 2:19-cv-06522 Dee A. Mankins 2:19-cv-06533 Iris L. Manning 2:19-cv-06534 Grachell L. Manuel 2:19-cv-06537 Janet S. Markello 2:19-cv-06540 Douglas Worden 2:19-cv-06542 Joann C. Worden 2:19-cv-06550 Marilyn Young 2:19-cv-06599 Missouri McCann 2:19-cv-06614 Hollis Q. Moore 2:19-cv-06637 Antonio Morales 2:19-cv-06641 Anna M. Morales 2:19-cv-06642 August Morella 2:19-cv-06644 Jessie Noiel 2:19-cv-06649 Jeffrey A. Oakley 2:19-cv-06656 Norma J. Ochoa 2:19-cv-06657 Marilyn D. Ojeda 2:19-cv-06660 Mindy Oosting 2:19-cv-06673 William H. Morgan 2:19-cv-06677 Marilyn A. Palma 2:19-cv-06690 Darrell M. Papaleo 2:19-cv-06693 Betty A. Parks 2:19-cv-06696 Kay Parks 2:19-cv-06697 Maria D. Parovel 2:19-cv-06699 Deborah L Patterson 2:19-cv-06706 Lisa York-Williams 2:19-cv-06712 Shirley Murray 2:19-cv-06713 Sandy Myers 2:19-cv-06721 Renato Natal 2:19-cv-06730 Andrenette Marshall 2:19-cv-06748 Daniel Peters 2:19-cv-06823 David Peterson, Sr. 2:19-cv-06827 Leonard Nesbitt 2:19-cv-06828 Cherri D. Young 2:19-cv-06837 Rachel Martinez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Richard 996 2:19-cv-06845 Martinez, Deceased Annette K. Morris 2:19-cv-06862 1000 John Nicastro 2:19-cv-06889 1001 Eddie Nicholson 2:19-cv-06897 1002 Joyce Niemi 2:19-cv-06899 1003 Luis Nieves 2:19-cv-06900 1004 Barbara Noble 2:19-cv-06911 1005 Norma Wright 2:19-cv-06918 1006 Norman Reynolds 2:19-cv-06938 1007 Luis Rodriguez-Charriez 2:19-cv-06947 1008 Walter R. Roger 2:19-cv-06950 1009 James Potter 2:19-cv-06962 1010 Misty C. Powell 2:19-cv-06966 1011 Leon Rhodes and Veronica Rhodes 2:19-cv-06967 1012 Carolyn Powers 2:19-cv-06974 1013 Francis Presto 2:19-cv-06981 1014 Deborah A. Richard 2:19-cv-06989 1015 Daniel Paul 2:19-cv-07003 1016 Louise C. Peaco 2:19-cv-07010 1017 Pamela M. Pruitt 2:19-cv-07022 1018 Kathy Ridgeway 2:19-cv-07034 1019 Esteban Rojo 2:19-cv-07039 1020 Anthony Riley 2:19-cv-07045 1021 Ricky L. Wilson 2:19-cv-07047 1022 Annette H. Ringley 2:19-cv-07049 1023 Linda Roach 2:19-cv-07057 1024 Leona Quinn 2:19-cv-07059 1025 Frank Quinones 2:19-cv-07065 1026 Sharon Raabe 2:19-cv-07069 1027 Judith Robertson 2:19-cv-07082 1028 Martina Ramirez 2:19-cv-07083 1029 James Randolph 2:19-cv-07104 1030 Debbie M. Rankin 2:19-cv-07111 1031 April Rondeau 2:19-cv-07119 1032 Ruth Roozing-Grimsrud 2:19-cv-07126 1033 Manuel G. Rodriguez 2:19-cv-07137 1034 David B. Zarosky 2:19-cv-07139 1035 Brandi Peebles 2:19-cv-07166 David Pennypacker, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia 1036 2:19-cv-07175 Pennypacker, Deceased 1037 Eric D. Perkins 2:19-cv-07188 1038 Michael Scadden 2:19-CV-07191 Claudia Ortega, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Josefina 1039 2:19-cv-07201 Silva, deceased 1040 William Schiffert 2:19-cv-07203 1041 Sydney B. Silver 2:19-cv-07206 1042 Darlet A. Simile 2:19-cv-07208 1045 Ronald A. Simmons 2:19-cv-07216 1046 Sheryl D. Simpson 2:19-cv-07218 1047 Theresa Sipler 2:19-cv-07222 1048 Ben Schwartz 2:19-cv-07238 1049 Robert Smith 2:19-cv-07247 Rita Scott, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Melvern Scott, 1050 2:19-cv-07250 deceased 1051 Nancy Rouseau 2:19-cv-07267 1052 Lisa C. Rowlette 2:19-cv-07272 1053 Amanda Scrimpsher 2:19-cv-07300 1054 Roger Zickefoose 2:19-cv-07306 1055 Scott E. Shaner 2:19-cv-07348 1056 Raymond L. Shaner 2:19-cv-07349 1057 Anita L. Shank 2:19-cv-07352 1058 Carla A. Smith 2:19-cv-07358 1059 Debra Sheffey 2:19-cv-07372 1060 Gloria Sheppard 2:19-cv-07382 1061 Patricia A. Smith 2:19-cv-07383 1062 Andrew Sherrod 2:19-cv-07388 1063 Sharon Smith 2:19-cv-07389 1064 Valorie Sherrod 2:19-cv-07390 1065 Annette H. Shook 2:19-cv-07400 1066 Ysleta Smith 2:19-cv-07403 1067 Arlene Sidenstick 2:19-cv-07425 1068 David A. Soliz 2:19-cv-07493 1069 Gilbert J. Sosa 2:19-cv-07500 1070 Christina Spaulding 2:19-cv-07509 1071 Heidi McGee 2:19-cv-07516 1072 Troy McKelvy 2:19-cv-07521 1073 Shanda M. Meacacke 2:19-cv-07543 1074 Alan R. Sussman 2:19-cv-07552 1075 Wendy Swartz 2:19-cv-07555 1076 Brenda Swift 2:19-cv-07558 1077 Dawn Takacs 2:19-cv-07560 1078 Kermit E. Tate 2:19-cv-07563 1079 Tony E. Taylor 2:19-cv-07569 1080 Ronald Perrin 2:19-cv-07572 1081 Barbara A. Rauenzahn 2:19-cv-07574 1082 Janet Reardon 2:19-cv-07580 1083 Elspeth A. Teed 2:19-cv-07584 1084 Michael B. Tenore 2:19-cv-07587 1085 Ruby M. Terrasas 2:19-cv-07589 1086 Pamela D. Terry 2:19-cv-07590 1087 Miriam Thomas 2:19-cv-07597 1088 Willie Thomas 2:19-cv-07600 1091 Dean St. John 2:19-cv-07624 Diane Robinson, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of James 1092 2:19-cv-07627 Stacker, Deceased 1093 Daniel M. Russell 2:19-cv-07633 1094 Carrie L. Stark 2:19-cv-07634 1095 Courtney Stark 2:19-cv-07636 1096 Rose Starr 2:19-cv-07639 1097 Sally D. Reed 2:19-cv-07642 1098 Gail E. Sachs 2:19-cv-07653 1099 Sandra Steen 2:19-cv-07658 1100 Sheila K. Sain 2:19-cv-07661 1101 Yvette Sanders 2:19-cv-07673 1102 Vashon Stephens 2:19-cv-07676 1103 Sonja F. Anthony 2:19-cv-07681 1104 Madge E. Reed 2:19-cv-07701 1105 Dea Reed 2:19-cv-07707 1106 Linda K. Reed 2:19-cv-07717 1107 Shasta Cook 2:19-cv-07725 1108 Norma Fuentes 2:19-cv-07739 1109 Donna J. Renard 2:19-cv-07763 1110 Mark E. Lynch 2:19-cv-07771 1111 Tammy Sateriale 2:19-cv-07793 1112 Arnoldo Sauceda 2:19-cv-07799 1113 Rodney Stewart 2:19-cv-07800 1114 Ricky Stewart 2:19-cv-07804 1115 Nicholas Savini 2:19-cv-07825 1116 Lennie Stowes 2:19-cv-07851 1117 Joan V. Streek 2:19-cv-07857 Fred Stuhlemmer, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Leah 1118 2:19-cv-07864 Stuhlemmer, Deceased 1119 Eric T. Whitfield 2:19-cv-07871 1120 Susan Reitz 2:19-cv-07879 1121 Nowell E. Renth 2:19-cv-07884 1122 Silvia Retana 2:19-cv-07886 1123 Kevin Wiggs 2:19-cv-07893 1124 Sylvia Thrower 2:19-cv-07898 1125 Mona L. Timms 2:19-cv-07901 1126 Robert W. Tonini 2:19-cv-07908 1127 Jeffrey L. Montgomery 2:19-cv-07929 1128 Linda Palafox 2:19-cv-07955 1129 Mary N. Vieyra 2:19-cv-07990 1130 Mary Vincent 2:19-cv-08003 1131 Geraldine Virges 2:19-cv-08004 1132 Carmen Vitello 2:19-cv-08007 1133 Lois Torres 2:19-cv-08013 1136 Michael Waddy 2:19-cv-08035 1137 Kimberly A. Willhite 2:19-cv-08043 1138 Jeanette R. Wadholm-Williams 2:19-cv-08045 1139 Brycelynn Wakkukait 2:19-cv-08095 1140 Bonnie S. Walburn 2:19-cv-08097 1141 Dee N. Trejo 2:19-cv-08141 1142 Donna M. Tritto 2:19-cv-08150 1143 Arthur L. Waller 2:19-cv-08151 1144 Joseph Walsh 2:19-cv-08155 1145 Wanda J. Turnage 2:19-cv-08200 1146 Donald Turnbow 2:19-cv-08202 1147 Donald W. Vanadore Jr. 2:19-cv-08253 1148 Roberta L. Vankuren 2:19-cv-08259 1149 Linda I. Ruffin 2:19-cv-08279 1150 Jerome G. Washington 2:19-cv-08291 Cherry Watson as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Gary E.

1151 2:19-cv-08323 Watson, Deceased 1152 Betty Webb 2:19-cv-08430 1153 Peggy Wehr 2:19-cv-08436 1154 Daniel E. Varner 2:19-cv-08449 1155 Maria Welch 2:19-cv-08503 1156 Jimmy Welch 2:19-cv-08505 1157 Cody Weldon 2:19-cv-08506 1158 Cornelius Westbrook 2:19-cv-08509 1159 Audrey M. Werner 2:19-cv-08547 1160 Kathleen West 2:19-cv-08562 1161 Joseph White Sr. 2:19-cv-08573 1162 Sandra E. White 2:19-cv-08601 1163 Robert Acosta 2:19-cv-08709 1164 Eugene Fisher 2:19-cv-08838 Mary Bellmore, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 1165 2:19-cv-10047 Donn Bellmore, Deceased 1166 Katie Ware 2:19-cv-10141 1167 Michael Davis 2:19-cv-11777 1168 Dennis Thompson 2:19-cv-12040 1169 Janet Burau 2:19-cv-12611 1170 Rose Campbell 2:19-cv-12613 1171 Betty Jessie 2:19-cv-12618 1172 William Sayles 2:19-cv-12628 1173 Robert Brantley 2:19-cv-20086 1174 Brenda Kellam 2:20-cv-07294 1175 Kathleen Anderson 2:20-cv-07343 1176 Sandra Loesche 2:20-cv-07344 1177 Alex Montiel 2:20-cv-07345 1178 Dolores Payne 2:20-cv-07348 1181 Linda K Shierling 2:20-cv-20743