HAYNES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY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. 60, ECF No. 709, entered on November 19, 2021, which identified 962 cases in which Pfizer, Inc.1 (“Pfizer”) 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. 60 ordered the plaintiffs in those cases within thirty days to (1) establish that service was effected on Pfizer as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2 by filing proof of service, (2) voluntarily dismiss Pfizer, or (3) show cause why Pfizer should not be dismissed within thirty days of entry of the Order. CMO No. 60, at 2, ECF No. 709. CMO No. 60 ordered Plaintiffs to file their responses on the dockets of the individual cases, and permitted Pfizer to oppose within thirty days of each plaintiff’s response.3 Plaintiffs were specifically advised that “[f]ailure to comply with the terms of this Order will result in the dismissal of the case as to Pfizer.” CMO No. 60, at 2.

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. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1097 (3d Cir. 1995).4 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 Pfizer 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)).

III. Discussion As stated above, CMO No. 60 ordered the identified plaintiffs within thirty days to either establish that service was properly effectuated pursuant to Rule 4(m), voluntarily dismiss Pfizer,

The 640 plaintiffs in the cases identified on Exhibit A herein (“Plaintiffs”) have failed to satisfy the requirements of CMO No. 60. Plaintiffs do not claim to have timely served Pfizer and fail to show cause why these cases should proceed despite their lack of 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.”). Pfizer did not agree to any modifications to service procedures from those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pfizer did not agree to accept service via e-mail, nor did it agree to receive waivers of service via e-mail. Cf. CMO No. 7, at § II.D, ECF No. 112; CMO No. 27, at § I.D, ECF No. 260; CMO No. 32, ECF No. 396; CMO No. 79, ECF No. 842.

Of the 640 cases at issue here, Plaintiffs and Pfizer agree that Pfizer had not been served at all in 61 of them. In the other 579 cases, Plaintiffs concede that Pfizer was served only after CMO No. 60 was entered. Of the 579 cases where one or both of the parties assert that Pfizer was served after CMO No. 60 (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 41 cases; between two to three years after the ninety-day period in 80 cases; and between three to just over four years after the ninety-day period in 458 cases. No Plaintiff here has dismissed Pfizer from their case. Accordingly, due to untimely service and lack of good cause shown, it is appropriate that Pfizer be dismissed from the cases identified in Exhibit A. a. Plaintiffs Do Not Demonstrate Good Cause Mandating an Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiffs’ responses to CMO No. 60 do not demonstrate good cause excusing their lack of timely service pursuant to Rule 4(m). Good cause requires “a demonstration of good faith on the part of the 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. To determine whether good cause exists, the Court considers “(1) reasonableness of plaintiff’s efforts to serve (2) prejudice to the defendant by lack of timely service and (3) whether plaintiff moved for an enlargement of time to serve.” Id. The primary focus must always be on “the plaintiff’s reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.” Id. Yet here, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show good cause for their failure to timely serve or addressed the reasons for untimeliness. See, e.g., Pl. Allen Pyne’s Resp. to Orders to Show Cause Regarding Service of Process, Ex. A, No. 2:18-cv-06938, ECF No. 10-1 (“Pyne Resp.”). Accordingly, as the Court further explains, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for failure to timely serve in compliance with Rule 4(m).

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs responded to CMO No. 60 by filing virtually identical responses that do not reference Pfizer’s 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., Pyne Resp.; Nancy Hignite’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause Regarding Service of Process, No. 2:18-cv-02649, ECF No. 12 (“Hignite Resp.”). In addition, Plaintiffs’ briefing does not address any reasons for the failure to timely serve and instead focuses on arguments concerning Pfizer’s 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) (citing MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097) (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 effectuate 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 579 cases, service was effected at least one year after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed; in 458 of the 579 cases, or 79 percent, service was effected over three years after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed. The 61 Plaintiffs who have never served Pfizer also did not provide any explanation justifying why they have yet to serve Pfizer. Given Plaintiffs’ lack of sufficient efforts to serve the complaint, this factor weighs heavily in favor of Pfizer.

Under the second factor, the Court considers prejudice to Pfizer by lack of timely service.

Here, Plaintiffs’ failure to serve caused Pfizer 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 Pfizer has been prejudiced by the delayed service or non-service.

See Order Regarding CMO No. 60, at 7, ECF No. 887. Given the prejudice to Pfizer resulting from Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve, this factor cuts against good cause. Even if Plaintiffs had demonstrated lack of prejudice to Pfizer, “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 Pfizer, they did so only after CMO No. 60 was entered, which was a year or more after the time to serve Pfizer in compliance with Rule 4(m) had lapsed. See, e.g., Pyne Resp.; Hignite Resp.

Plaintiffs have not explained why they did not request an extension of time to serve Pfizer until after CMO No. 60 was entered by this Court. Accordingly, this factor similarly weighs in favor of Pfizer 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 Pfizer 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 Pfizer was 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 Pfizer or another defendant does not mean that Pfizer had actual legal notice that a particular plaintiff would be pursuing his or her claim against Pfizer 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 Pyne Resp. at 10 (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 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 Pfizer argues, the tolling

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. agreement “covered Plaintiffs who could not yet show proof of use as to a Pfizer 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. 18-cv-04095, ECF No. 19 at 10 n.3. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Asbestos is misplaced and they have not demonstrated that Pfizer 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 Pfizer expended time and resources through its repeated attempts to determine whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation against them, including its 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. 63 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. 60 has expired. See, e.g., Pyne 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 Pfizer 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 Pfizer 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 Pfizer (in the 579 cases where service was late) or why they did not serve Pfizer at all (in the remaining 61 cases).6 c. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown that Pfizer Waived its Defense to Untimely Service Plaintiffs generally assert that Pfizer waived any defense related to untimely service by virtue of its conduct in this MDL litigation. Plaintiffs argue that dismissal of their claims against Pfizer is inappropriate in those cases where (1) Pfizer either filed an answer without raising service or answered before service; (2) Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss without raising service; or (3) Pfizer manifested some intention to defend the case through Pfizer’s conduct. See, e.g., Pyne

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.

Respo. at § IV.B; Hignite Resp. at § IV.B. For the below reasons, the Court finds that Pfizer has not waived its defense to untimely service.

The Court first turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that Pfizer waived service either by filing an answer without raising service or by answering before service. 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., Pyne Resp. at 7. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that there are three potential scenarios where service has been waived by answer.

First, Plaintiffs claim that in any case where Pfizer filed a short form answer, service was waived because the short form answer simply incorporated Pfizer’s 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. 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. 260), 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., Pyne Resp. at 8; see also CMO No. 27, at § I.A.

Regardless of the merits of these arguments as a matter of law, none of these scenarios are applicable to Pfizer here. Only two Plaintiffs in the cases identified in Exhibit A assert that a “Defendant” actually filed an answer or filed a notice of appearance in their case, but the dockets in those two cases clearly reflect that Pfizer did not file an answer or notice of appearance in those two cases. See Pl. Sharon Nali’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, Ex. A, 2:18-cv-07667, ECF No. 14-1; Pl. Carol Presley’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, Ex. A, 2:19-cv-16903, ECF No. 6-1. With these two Plaintiffs’ specific assertions contradicted by their dockets, none of the Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A have shown that Pfizer either filed a short form answer or a notice of appearance. Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments asserting waiver based on Pfizer’s answers (or appearances) do not apply here.

Turning to Plaintiffs’ next argument, Plaintiffs assert that Pfizer waived its defense to lack of service in those cases where Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss for purported failure to comply with the tolling agreement without specifically raising the defense of service. However, Pfizer did not raise service in its 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 expressly restricted defendants from moving to dismiss individual plaintiffs under Rule 12 absent leave of this Court.

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 its authorized dismissal motions pursuant to the tolling agreement and CMO No. 7, Pfizer 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 Pfizer, or any other defendant, waived its defense of service by failing to argue it in their motions to dismiss related to purported violations of the tolling agreement.

Plaintiffs’ final argument on waiver is that Pfizer waived its defense of service through its conduct in the PPI litigation as a whole or in individual cases. As to the argument that Pfizer waived service through its conduct in the PPI 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 Pfizer never previously raised—and 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.

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ general response argues that Pfizer waived its 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). In that case, 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. While eighty-four Plaintiffs herein claim that they received a deficiency letter related to their Plaintiff Fact Sheet, they do not specifically allege whether Pfizer or another defendant sent that deficiency letter, nor did they include a copy of the deficiency letter in their response. Pfizer’s counsel has represented that Pfizer did not issue any Plaintiff Fact Sheet deficiency letters to the plaintiffs in the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto and that it has not threatened to pursue a judicial remedy if the plaintiff did not cure the deficiency. In short, none of these plaintiffs has actually demonstrated that Pfizer has meaningfully participated in the litigation in their particular case. Further, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ suggestion to impute Pfizer’s conduct in defending itself in cases not subject to CMO No. 60 to suggest that Pfizer waived its defense of service of process in the specific cases identified in Exhibit A hereto.

Plaintiffs also assert that Pfizer has waited too long to assert its 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 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 cases identified in Exhibit A is a Bellwether case or a Wave case and thus Pfizer has not participated in discovery in their individual cases like the defendant in Taylor did, and as noted previously, stipulated CMO No. 7 precluded Pfizer from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of service without leave of the Court.

IV. Conclusion CMO No. 60 required Plaintiffs to (1) show they timely served Pfizer pursuant to Rule 4(m), (2) dismiss Pfizer from their case, or (3) show cause why this Court should not dismiss Pfizer 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. 60 and effectuate timely service, and have failed to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion not to dismiss Pfizer from their cases. Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions and orders Pfizer to be dismissed without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A.’

Accordingly, ITIS on this 24 _ day of April, 2023; ORDERED that Pfizer shall be DISMISSED without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto.

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

1 Nancy Hignite 2:18-cv-02649 James U. Hodges 2:18-cv-02952 Ruthe A. Hensley 2:18-cv-03235 Antonio D. Davis 2:18-cv-03775 Misty Ashley 2:18-cv-03851 David Frost 2:18-cv-03861 Lester Hall and Ruth E. Hall 2:18-cv-03881 Lynda D. McKibben 2:18-cv-03885 Leonore L. Sosa 2:18-cv-03886 Garrett Sons 2:18-cv-03894 Todd K. Andrade 2:18-cv-04040 Norman Kydd 2:18-cv-04048 Della I. Gregg 2:18-cv-04054 Denver Kennett 2:18-cv-04078 John Ortiz 2:18-cv-04095 Mike Moffat 2:18-cv-04139 Laurie T. Lum 2:18-cv-04159 Betty L. Sanner 2:18-cv-04169 William Ketelsen 2:18-cv-04176 Tia Hartmann 2:18-cv-04180 Grady Harris 2:18-cv-04181 Daniel Sharp 2:18-cv-04184 Theresa Johnson 2:18-cv-04206 Mary A. Williams 2:18-cv-04208 Rayshell Robinson 2:18-cv-04215 Deborah Allen 2:18-cv-04281 Sharon Acevedo 2:18-cv-04282 Patricia Bean 2:18-cv-04283 Michael Barrett 2:18-cv-04290 Judy K. Aiken 2:18-cv-04291 Dale Bryan 2:18-cv-04293 Tonya Bates-Wilson 2:18-cv-04296 Donna J. Cushenberry 2:18-cv-04298 Stella Benefiel 2:18-cv-04304 Roosevelt Dunning 2:18-cv-04305 Gloria Eddy 2:18-cv-04308 Edgardo Biliran 2:18-cv-04309 Emma Balthazar 2:18-cv-04312 Antionette Borden 2:18-cv-04315 Shelley Hager, as Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Hager, Deceased 2:18-cv-04317 Anthony Elliott 2:18-cv-04318 Kevin Casey 2:18-cv-04319 George Curry 2:18-cv-04326 Deloris Daniel 2:18-cv-04330 Dennis Ledford and Tracey Ledford 2:18-cv-04477 Rozell Collins 2:18-cv-04482 Cassandra Howard 2:18-cv-04484 Patricia Cooper 2:18-cv-04491 Leray Littell 2:18-cv-04492 Tony Long 2:18-cv-04495 Sandra Davis 2:18-cv-04496 Robert Parham, Jr. 2:18-cv-04497 Climmie Gibbons 2:18-cv-04499 Teresa Harlen, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack R. Harlen, 56 2:18-cv-04500 Deceased Vivian Parker 2:18-cv-04501 Heather P. Lott 2:18-cv-04502 Virginia Rackins 2:18-cv-04504 Otis D. Roberts 2:18-cv-04507 Robert Ludlam, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Aubie Ludlam, 61 2:18-cv-04511 Deceased Jessie Martin 2:18-cv-04519 Mary Hankamer 2:18-cv-04520 Brenda R. Dale 2:18-cv-04526 Kelly Smith 2:18-cv-04529 Mary Haynes 2:18-cv-04535 Betty Head 2:18-cv-04538 Jerome Browning 2:18-cv-04827 Clarence Mumma 2:18-cv-04828 Beverly Bryant 2:18-cv-04829 Jose Fronda 2:18-cv-04830 Rolanda Allmon 2:18-cv-04831 Constance Guardado 2:18-cv-04833 Steve Slade 2:18-cv-04843 Donell Andrews 2:18-cv-04852 Joyce Watson 2:18-cv-04864 Jeanette Williams 2:18-cv-04868 Avis Hiestand 2:18-cv-04871 Roger Mata 2:18-cv-04872 Linda Bishop 2:18-cv-04873 Darlene Mason 2:18-cv-04874 Laura Raffa 2:18-cv-04877 Scott Allen 2:18-cv-04882 Max Holbrook and Joyce Holbrook 2:18-cv-04888 Mildred Brock 2:18-cv-04904 Unni Shelton 2:18-cv-04915 Darwin Watson 2:18-cv-04918 Terry Debruyn 2:18-cv-04921 John M. Sierra 2:18-cv-04923 Priscilla Smeets 2:18-cv-04938 Paula Ford 2:18-cv-04943 Joseph Spurgeon and Sambra Spurgeon 2:18-cv-04948 Roger Phillips 2:18-cv-05034 Billie Martin Stinson 2:18-cv-05038 Wanda Thomas 2:18-cv-05040 Lorenzo Valenzuela 2:18-cv-05055 Brenda Jo Lemley 2:18-cv-05060 Helen Waddle 2:18-cv-05061 Rodrick Whitaker 2:18-cv-05068 Dawn Miller 2:18-cv-05069 Robert Dryden 2:18-cv-05081 Charla Mogg 2:18-cv-05084 Maudell Palmer 2:18-cv-05306 Fred L. Johns 2:18-cv-05314 Danielle Newman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack F.

107 2:18-cv-05324 Newman, Deceased Peggy S. Conley 2:18-cv-05343 Dwight W. Graley, Sr. 2:18-cv-05345 Scott Hannigan 2:18-cv-05351 Birdie D. Jackson 2:18-cv-05353 Rebecca M Oates 2:18-cv-05360 David Pierce 2:18-cv-05361 Teresa Byers 2:18-cv-05431 Donald Gibson 2:18-cv-05438 Michael Clarke and Maribeth Clarke 2:18-cv-05448 Sandra Garrett 2:18-cv-05463 Nancy L. Harsh 2:18-cv-05466 Bryan G. Swanson 2:18-cv-05476 Melvin Stubbs 2:18-cv-05479 Jennifer Wolfe 2:18-cv-05485 Sharon Powers 2:18-cv-05488 Arthur D. Warshawsky 2:18-cv-05490 Martha Burns 2:18-cv-05495 Kyle Rose 2:18-cv-05500 Jeffrey Jones 2:18-cv-05504 Burma G. Sizemore 2:18-cv-05511 Carmen Stevens 2:18-cv-05516 Shirley Teel, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Ezra C. Teel, 129 2:18-cv-05521 Deceased James Wellman 2:18-cv-05525 Dara Dougherty 2:18-cv-05954 Sheryl Gerald 2:18-cv-05959 Samantha Riddle 2:18-cv-05971 Gwenda Steele 2:18-cv-05975 Deceased 2:18-cv-05976 George Hawkins 2:18-cv-05980 Willie Anderson 2:18-cv-06130 Mary Hollander 2:18-cv-06148 Lance Faulkner 2:18-cv-06154 Jeffrey Reed 2:18-cv-06159 Sharon Reid 2:18-cv-06164 Bartholomew Gaiera and Karen Gaiera 2:18-cv-06166 Kathlene Brown 2:18-cv-06171 Joni Barrows 2:18-cv-06178 Rebecca Harrington 2:18-cv-06196 Patricia Hasty 2:18-cv-06202 Richard Jackson and Judy Fontenot 2:18-cv-06214 Bonnie L. Mize 2:18-cv-06232 Jackie Knight 2:18-cv-06233 Tunya Lowe 2:18-cv-06256 Patina Johnson 2:18-cv-06274 Cristy Blankenship 2:18-cv-06436 Johnny Daniels 2:18-cv-06440 Emilee Palmer and Michael D. Palmer 2:18-cv-06449 Travis Charlton, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia 155 2:18-cv-06476 Halbert, Deceased Nina Fernandez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Sanra Nobil, 156 2:18-cv-06497 Deceased Elizabeth Prater 2:18-cv-06506 Jerry Blosser, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 158 2:18-cv-06515 Wanda Blosser, Deceased Norma Stillwagoner 2:18-cv-06520 Karen Keenan, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 160 2:18-cv-06522 of Larry Keenan, Deceased Gina Zerby, Individully and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 161 2:18-cv-06532 Michael Zerby, Deceased Michelle Wilson 2:18-cv-06540 Emilly Knotts, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cheryl Stefenel, 163 2:18-cv-06552 Deceased Jacquelyn Booker 2:18-cv-06834 Dianne Caldwell 2:18-cv-06846 Leona Collins, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 166 2:18-cv-06869 Deniese Collins, Deceased Patrick Connors 2:18-cv-06876 Allen Pyne 2:18-cv-06938 Gladys Maddox 2:18-cv-06939 Johnnie Oliver 2:18-cv-06947 Betty Bassett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 171 2:18-cv-06949 Robert Avera, Deceased deceased 2:18-cv-06952 Danny Parker 2:18-cv-06964 Patricia Parker 2:18-cv-06975 Charles Howard 2:18-cv-06986 Teresa Hill-Ibrahim 2:18-cv-07005 Judy Bradshaw, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 177 2:18-cv-07049 Jimmy Bradshaw, Deceased Victor Sackett 2:18-cv-07059 Virginia Boyd 2:18-cv-07090 Herbert Johnson 2:18-cv-07130 Joan Stoveken, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Gay 181 2:18-cv-07137 Stoveken, Deceased Angela Spicer, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 182 2:18-cv-07148 James Spicer, Deceased Amanda Turner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 183 2:18-cv-07153 Ronal Turner, Deceased Jeanette Mouton 2:18-cv-07178 Erick Barnes 2:18-cv-07187 Tammy Perry 2:18-cv-07194 Wendy Brazill 2:18-cv-07195 Brenda Fletcher 2:18-cv-07203 Nancy Esque 2:18-cv-07208 Diane McGee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kevin 190 2:18-cv-07239 McGee, Deceased George Gale 2:18-cv-07267 Fabian Garcia, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 192 2:18-cv-07276 Yolanda Montalvo, Deceased Joann Flowers, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 193 2:18-cv-07320 Sophia Perkins, Deceased Thomas Russo 2:18-cv-07340 Paul Lue, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Hyacinth 195 2:18-cv-07352 Johnson, Deceased Ernestine Mays-Mitchell, Individually and as the Representative of the 196 2:18-cv-07365 Estate of Ernest Mays, Deceased Birdie Woods 2:18-cv-07438 Betty Apellido 2:18-cv-07557 Pauline Corn 2:18-cv-07584 Gloria Dietrich 2:18-cv-07592 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 Mary Skeens 2:18-cv-07637 Marlene Hatfield 2:18-cv-07639 Sharon Nali 2:18-cv-07667 Burgos, Deceased 2:18-cv-07688 Ronald Klinenberg 2:18-cv-07706 Luis Nesta 2:18-cv-07708 Lorraine Turco 2:18-cv-07713 Hazel Phillips 2:18-cv-07748 Tracie Powers 2:18-cv-07756 Mary Rivali, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Robert 214 2:18-cv-07760 Rivali, Deceased Marilyn Sullivan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 215 2:18-cv-07781 Evelyn Sullivan, Deceased Bernadine Hardie 2:18-cv-07795 Maribel Villanueva, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 217 2:18-cv-07799 Alexander Rivera-Baez, Deceased Karen Vassar, Representative of the Estate of Bobby Vassar, Deceased 2:18-cv-08722 Odilia Perez 2:19-cv-01061 Dennis Quintin 2:19-cv-01813 Martha Griffith 2:19-cv-01853 William Hall 2:19-cv-01859 Brenda Willis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 223 2:19-cv-01873 Seress Harris, Deceased Gloria Haywood 2:19-cv-01881 Ruth Hurd 2:19-cv-01887 Eric Hurwitz 2:19-cv-01889 Patricia Joppien 2:19-cv-01897 Paul Jozwiak 2:19-cv-01902 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 Gladys Carpenter 2:19-cv-01981 Brandon Cole 2:19-cv-02004 Robert Crenshaw 2:19-cv-02011 Wanda Crager 2:19-cv-02012 Jason Daniels 2:19-cv-02015 Luis Manuel Delgado, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate 239 2:19-cv-02030 of Luis C. Delgado, Deceased 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 Darryl Oglesby, as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Sandra 246 2:19-cv-02066 Carey Bowie, Individually and as the Represenetative of the Estate of 248 2:19-cv-02086 Henry Bowie, Deceased Maria Edwards, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 249 2:19-cv-02092 Francisca Camacho, Deceased Warren Ketchmore 2:19-cv-02102 Juan Cantu, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 251 2:19-cv-02104 Margarita Cantu, Deceased Juanita Landers 2:19-cv-02127 Karen Gaines 2:19-cv-02136 Brenda McCurdy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 254 2:19-cv-02143 Rickey McCurdy, Deceased Bridgette Long 2:19-cv-02159 Nettie Overton, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 256 2:19-cv-02174 Charlie Overton, Deceased Glenda Long 2:19-cv-02175 Melissa Olson 2:19-cv-02204 Raymond Wilson, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 259 2:19-cv-02239 Randy Orr, Deceased 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, 266 2:19-cv-02367 Deceased Joyce Sheffield 2:19-cv-02377 Terry Sheffield 2:19-cv-02386 Carl Warner 2:19-cv-02456 Lionel Smith 2:19-cv-02464 Sherrie Abrahamson 2:19-cv-02469 Linda Stockwell 2:19-cv-02475 Diane Watkins 2:19-cv-02484 James Williams 2:19-cv-02487 Charles Wiley 2:19-cv-02493 Belinda Beck, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Willie 276 2:19-cv-02519 Taylor, Deceaed Nathan Tyler 2:19-cv-02523 Vivian Wittner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 278 2:19-cv-02531 Myra Wittner, Deceased Darwin Valentine 2:19-cv-02547 Susan Lynn Wright, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 280 2:19-cv-02577 Tabitha Wright, Deceased Donna Wooten 2:19-cv-02586 Sharon Grady, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Herbert Grady, 282 2:19-cv-02669 Connie Black 2:19-cv-02703 Laurie J Dey 2:19-cv-02873 Esmeralda Olvera, As proposed Representative of the Estate of Santos 286 2:19-CV-02877 Olvera, deceased Ernest J Palmer 2:19-cv-02882 Cheryl Adams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Belle Collins, 288 2:19-cv-02996 Deceased Angela Clark 2:19-cv-03070 George Reyes 2:19-cv-03081 Joe A. Gottwald 2:19-cv-03115 Matt Spasoff 2:19-cv-03117 Nancy Fennell 2:19-cv-03132 Merle Kirkland 2:19-cv-03272 Sheila Holmes 2:19-cv-03327 Brenda Y. Ridyolph 2:19-cv-03419 Cynthia Tucker 2:19-cv-03489 Rosetta T. Cunningham 2:19-cv-03553 Michelle Denofa, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Frank 299 2:19-cv-03571 Denofa, Deceased Paul E. Dilocker 2:19-cv-03589 Ruth Edwards 2:19-cv-03595 Phillip Cottle 2:19-cv-03618 Jannie Gichia 2:19-cv-03625 Diana Greathouse 2:19-cv-03633 Lena Turknett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Gaines, 305 2:19-cv-03636 Deceased Suzanne Coleman-Cunningham 2:19-cv-03638 Betty Hunter, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 307 2:19-cv-03645 Thomas Hunter, Deceased Noreen Davis-Xanthis 2:19-cv-03646 Juanita Mekwuye 2:19-cv-03652 Carla A. Dimatteo 2:19-cv-03658 Barbara Zajack 2:19-cv-03663 Jennifer Collins 2:19-cv-03679 Melissa Harris 2:19-cv-03684 Tracy Henderson 2:19-cv-03685 Linwood Flemister 2:19-cv-03686 James W. Franklin, Sr. 2:19-cv-03711 Keisha Kimbrough 2:19-cv-03723 Cynthia Lawhorn 2:19-cv-03739 Lynell Johnson 2:19-cv-03784 Michael Anthony Jones 2:19-cv-03806 Cara Kreider 2:19-cv-03817 Stephen C. McNeill 2:19-cv-03823 Michael DePhillipo, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 323 2:19-cv-03858 Melissa Konarski, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 325 2:19-cv-03869 Pamela Zaccardi, Deceased Kevin M. Takacs 2:19-cv-03921 Anna B. Franks 2:19-cv-03984 Brandon R. Ward 2:19-cv-03987 Raymond A. Watson 2:19-cv-04002 Darren Williams 2:19-cv-04012 Belinda L. Laird 2:19-cv-04031 Anita Loudy 2:19-cv-04113 Sandra Detherage 2:19-cv-04133 Carol Rosenblum 2:19-cv-04146 Linda Barnett 2:19-cv-04152 Keith Ellery 2:19-cv-04166 Kerry Bland 2:19-cv-04178 Denise Garrette 2:19-cv-04188 Josette Schaffer 2:19-cv-04192 John Danso, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Vickie 340 2:19-cv-04204 Danso, Deceased Lawrence Lucerne 2:19-cv-04209 Sandra Mason 2:19-cv-04218 Beverly McCaleb 2:19-cv-04224 Karen E. Rawlings 2:19-cv-04226 Veda McDonald-Rhodes, Individually and as the Representative of the 345 2:19-cv-04228 Estate of Andre McDonald, Deceased Joanne Smith 2:19-cv-04234 Diane Wood 2:19-cv-04242 Terry L. Tharp 2:19-cv-04250 Donald Torgerson 2:19-cv-04254 Mary Burchett 2:19-cv-04470 Michael Bowen 2:19-cv-04503 Curtis Banks, Jr. 2:19-cv-04514 Catherine Antwine 2:19-cv-04516 Jackie L. Brown 2:19-cv-04518 Joseph A. Archer 2:19-cv-04519 Margie T. Bannister 2:19-cv-04528 Leta Bannon 2:19-cv-04535 Janice Weibley, on behalf of Elizabeth L. Boyd 2:19-cv-04537 Richard Bailey 2:19-cv-04559 Debra Bramblett 2:19-cv-04561 Brent Bregan 2:19-cv-04574 Renee E. Adkins 2:19-cv-04623 Damisha L. Bishop 2:19-cv-04684 Joe Alfieri 2:19-cv-04690 Shirley Bass 2:19-cv-04703 Alice Baxter 2:19-cv-04722 Deceased 2:19-cv-04750 Twila M. Dillon 2:19-cv-04790 Dora Chatman 2:19-cv-04826 David A. Ealy 2:19-cv-04837 Albert G. Collins 2:19-cv-04853 Nelda Dugas 2:19-cv-04861 James Drain 2:19-cv-04863 Tina Dasher 2:19-cv-04882 Augusta L. Colson 2:19-cv-04909 John Elliott 2:19-cv-04913 David Andrews 2:19-cv-04914 Adela Anguiano 2:19-cv-04927 Troy Ersch 2:19-cv-04932 Ronald R. Francis 2:19-cv-04975 Angela Clinton 2:19-cv-04981 Robin Fizhugh 2:19-cv-05006 Mary Duncan 2:19-cv-05072 Charlotte Edwards 2:19-cv-05097 Matilda Gagliardi 2:19-cv-05119 Barbara S. Foutty 2:19-cv-05132 Angela K. Henry 2:19-cv-05185 Bobby G Jones 2:19-cv-05196 Darlene Huettenberger 2:19-cv-05197 Gary D. Johnson 2:19-cv-05199 Helen Humphrey 2:19-cv-05243 Ronnie W. Johnson 2:19-cv-05247 Donna Hines 2:19-cv-05275 Denice M Justice 2:19-cv-05307 Connie Ivory 2:19-cv-05324 Constance Gary 2:19-cv-05335 Barton S. Hickey 2:19-cv-05353 Marne Gonzales 2:19-cv-05355 Pamela Kazak 2:19-cv-05369 Phyllis J. Kinsey 2:19-cv-05376 Steven Graham 2:19-cv-05547 June S. Grumbein 2:19-cv-05558 Alcadio Guajardo, III 2:19-cv-05583 Theresa R. Grove 2:19-cv-05606 Darren Gines 2:19-cv-05608 Connie Gamez 2:19-cv-05652 Paul Glasper 2:19-cv-05699 Doris Harder 2:19-cv-05791 Rashidah Id-Deen 2:19-cv-05805 Bonnie Holtgrew 2:19-cv-05814 Jeffrey A Heaps 2:19-cv-05853 Lisa Mitchell 2:19-cv-06080 Berchia M. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06106 Jason R. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06110 Anna Hoppes 2:19-cv-06157 Carson E. Wingo 2:19-cv-06224 Joe N. Little 2:19-cv-06225 Betty J. Withrow 2:19-cv-06226 Annette London 2:19-cv-06231 Penny E Wolfe 2:19-cv-06237 Melissa Lonsdale 2:19-cv-06246 Richard A. Lovelace 2:19-cv-06320 Desiree Lovins 2:19-cv-06323 Betty Lowther 2:19-cv-06374 Joseph W. Lucas 2:19-cv-06376 Martin Masar Jr. 2:19-cv-06432 James Mason 2:19-cv-06444 Lynda Mercer 2:19-cv-06456 Lena Woolfolk 2:19-cv-06457 Arlene Miller 2:19-cv-06496 Thelma McClellen 2:19-cv-06520 Brenda McConnachie 2:19-cv-06522 Grachell L. Manuel 2:19-cv-06537 Uri Moscovici 2:19-cv-06541 Marilyn Young 2:19-cv-06599 Terry Hays-Booker 2:19-cv-06613 Missouri McCann 2:19-cv-06614 Marybelle J. Nohejl and Donald Nohejl 2:19-cv-06648 Colton Norwood 2:19-cv-06653 Norma J. Ochoa 2:19-cv-06657 Herschel Overby 2:19-cv-06681 Sherrie Owerko 2:19-cv-06685 Deborah L. Patterson 2:19-cv-06706 Shirley Murray 2:19-cv-06713 David Peterson, Sr. 2:19-cv-06827 Leonard Nesbitt 2:19-cv-06828 Alvin Williamson 2:19-cv-06848 David O. Pinto 2:19-cv-06874 Andrew E. Polly 2:19-cv-06890 Emily Nichols 2:19-cv-06894 Joyce Niemi 2:19-cv-06899 Norma Wright 2:19-cv-06918 Misty C. Powell 2:19-cv-06966 Leon Rhodes and Veronica Rhodes 2:19-cv-06967 Linda Roach 2:19-cv-07057 Sharon Raabe 2:19-cv-07069 Brandi Peebles 2:19-cv-07166 William Schiffert 2:19-cv-07203 Darlet A. Simile 2:19-cv-07208 Ben Schwartz 2:19-cv-07238 Robert Smith 2:19-cv-07247 Rita Scott, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Melvern Scott, 466 2:19-cv-07250 Deceased Roberta Ruddy 2:19-cv-07297 Scott E. Shaner 2:19-cv-07348 Amos Smith 2:19-cv-07350 Anita L. Shank 2:19-cv-07352 Sharon Smith 2:19-cv-07389 Valorie Sherrod 2:19-cv-07390 Annette H. Shook 2:19-cv-07400 Ysleta Smith 2:19-cv-07403 Arlene Sidenstick 2:19-cv-07425 Heidi McGee 2:19-cv-07516 Laronda M. McMurray 2:19-cv-07540 Shanda M. Meacacke 2:19-cv-07543 Brenda Swift 2:19-cv-07558 Dawn Takacs 2:19-cv-07560 Ruby M. Terrasas 2:19-cv-07589 Pamela D. Terry 2:19-cv-07590 Ruth Thompson 2:19-cv-07605 Cheryl Russell 2:19-cv-07635 Courtney Stark 2:19-cv-07636 Sally D. Reed 2:19-cv-07642 Sandra Steen 2:19-cv-07658 Sonja F. Anthony 2:19-cv-07681 Nadine Reese 2:19-cv-07732 Tammy Sateriale 2:19-cv-07793 Arnoldo Sauceda 2:19-cv-07799 Rodney Stewart 2:19-cv-07800 Nicholas Savini 2:19-cv-07825 Joan v. Streek 2:19-cv-07857 Emma L. White 2:19-cv-07869 Susan Reitz 2:19-cv-07879 Kevin Wiggs 2:19-cv-07893 Robert W. Tonini 2:19-cv-07908 Carmen Vitello 2:19-cv-08007 Brenda J. Wadman 2:19-cv-08050 Jami Butler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of David 501 2:19-cv-08067 Ayers, Deceased Bonnie S. Walburn 2:19-cv-08097 Dianne C. Walker 2:19-cv-08137 Corderro Watts 2:19-cv-08325 Wayne Price 2:19-cv-08421 Daniel E. Varner 2:19-cv-08449 Audrey M. Werner 2:19-cv-08547 Joseph White Sr. 2:19-cv-08573 Robert Acosta 2:19-cv-08709 Wilma Bibbs 2:19-cv-10048 Shirley Brantley 2:19-cv-10050 Esther Garza, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Jorge 514 2:19-cv-10059 Garza, Deceased James Goff 2:19-cv-10060 Regla Hernandez 2:19-cv-10064 Elizabeth Hoover, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 517 2:19-cv-10069 Katharina Hoover, Deceased Barbara Jensen 2:19-cv-10072 Lorenzo Limon 2:19-cv-10079 Andrew Mae Martin 2:19-cv-10083 Delaine Moore 2:19-cv-10087 Allawana Parsons, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 522 2:19-cv-10088 Smith Parsons, Deceased Lydia Robinson 2:19-cv-10092 Felicita Santos 2:19-cv-10094 Margaret Chappel, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 525 2:19-cv-10102 Adrian Smith, Deceased Ernestine Thompson 2:19-cv-10115 Rosa Vega 2:19-cv-10129 Katie Ware 2:19-cv-10141 Barbara Wargo 2:19-cv-10142 Billy Wiginton 2:19-cv-10143 Scott Wright 2:19-cv-10145 Brenda Wyatt 2:19-cv-10146 Sheila Cuffee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 533 2:19-cv-10147 Corinne Blackwell, Deceased Terri Bullock Dortmundt 2:19-cv-10715 Elisa Puentes, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Lucy 535 2:19-cv-11000 Hernandez, Deceased Kimberly Ann Tomajko 2:19-cv-11010 Billie Whitehead, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 537 2:19-cv-11013 Artis Whitehead, Deceased Judy Edwards 2:19-cv-11320 Kevin Hickles, Sr. 2:19-cv-11329 George D. Pulford 2:19-cv-11375 Roxanne Robertson 2:19-cv-11575 Julia K. Strickland 2:19-cv-11582 Sharon L. Thorne 2:19-cv-11585 Terri McCrea, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Franklin D.

546 2:19-cv-11857 McCrea, Sr. Nina Rosemond 2:19-cv-11862 Temika Smith 2:19-cv-11866 Lucy M. Spinner 2:19-cv-11888 Doris Bowens 2:19-cv-13354 Raymond Brisson 2:19-cv-13490 Earnest Thomas 2:19-cv-13491 Gregory Lomax 2:19-cv-13677 Arthuretta Watford 2:19-cv-13678 Thomas Bradd 2:19-cv-14061 Davida Linn-Cammarano, Individually and as the Representative of the 556 2:19-cv-14064 Estate of Frank Cammarano, Deceased Marilyn Padgett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 557 2:19-cv-14065 Novalynn Collins, Deceased Paul Cyrus 2:19-cv-14066 Joshua Cole 2:19-cv-14513 Karen King 2:19-cv-14732 Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 561 2:19-cv-15341 Irene Brown, Deceased Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 562 2:19-cv-15342 Lewis Brown, Sr., Deceased Jeffrey Taylor 2:19-cv-15345 Eddie Felder 2:19-cv-15445 Karen Wells, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 565 2:19-cv-15570 Michael Wells, Deceased Larry Moore 2:19-cv-15571 Paul Greer 2:19-cv-15777 Mark Marcello 2:19-cv-15881 Marilyn Pritchard 2:19-cv-16196 Carol Presley 2:19-cv-16903 Danny Garabedian 2:19-cv-16905 Robert McCray 2:19-cv-17096 Jack Schonenberger 2:19-cv-17541 Victor Rodriguez, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 574 2:19-cv-17658 Susan Rodriguez, Deceased Stephen Marchut 2:19-cv-17991 Richard Elstun 2:19-cv-18108 Karen Arndt 2:19-cv-18304 Shirley Howard 2:19-cv-19780 Robin Noblin 2:19-cv-19781 James Cadieux 2:19-cv-21720 Brandy Ramirez 2:19-cv-21958 Mary Medeiros 2:19-cv-21962 Lynetta J. Hollingworth 2:19-cv-22041 Thompson, Sr., Deceased 2:19-cv-22153 Weldon Paul Steadman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 585 2:19-cv-22221 Phyllis Steadman, Deceased Jonathan E Beckham 2:20-cv-00979 Kimberly J Burrows 2:20-cv-00984 Kenneth B. Cousette 2:20-cv-00986 Edward L. Thomas 2:20-cv-01015 Stephen Deloney 2:20-cv-01028 Kathreen Hensley 2:20-cv-01523 Brenda Williams, Individually and as PR of the Estate of Alvin Williams 2:20-cv-01844 Sterling Binns 2:20-cv-02070 Martha Jones 2:20-cv-03162 Ernest Nelson Jr. 2:20-cv-03422 Pasquale A Palange 2:20-cv-04531 Elena Patrizio 2:20-cv-04539 Dorothy R Lewis 2:20-cv-04636 Barbara Minchew 2:20-cv-04644 Rebecca Ann Gordon 2:20-cv-04667 Janice C. Rodgers 2:20-cv-04740 Gary Friend 2:20-cv-04760 Charles F Duke 2:20-cv-04792 Linda B Ross 2:20-cv-04811 Cheryl K Strouse 2:20-cv-04829 Glenda Weeks 2:20-cv-04841 Sherry White, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Raymond 607 2:20-cv-04844 White, Deceased Jacqueline Williams 2:20-cv-04846 Mary Zangara 2:20-cv-04850 William Clinton 2:20-cv-04884 Robert Shawn Trybala 2:20-cv-04923 Jane Cedar 2:20-cv-04940 Alma J. Williams 2:20-cv-04956 Jennefer Prepelica 2:20-cv-04957 John E. Pumphrey, Jr. 2:20-cv-04962 Sue Brewer 2:20-cv-05029 Joan C. Harper 2:20-cv-05040 Ella Norman 2:20-cv-05052 Susan M. Pierce 2:20-cv-05066 Hyram Archdale, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Kathleen K.

620 2:20-cv-05070 Price, Deceased Christopher Ritenour 2:20-cv-05077 Laura J Sutphin 2:20-cv-05079 Quintina N. Wright 2:20-cv-05088 James Ziegler 2:20-cv-05092 Keenan, Deceased 2:20-cv-05266 Karen Boyer 2:20-cv-05327 William Broyles, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary J.

628 2:20-cv-05329 Broyles, Deceased Renee McPheeters, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary Lou 629 2:20-cv-05343 Christopher, Deceased Linda Donaldson 2:20-cv-05344 Barbara Dryer 2:20-cv-05345 Eva M Longino 2:20-cv-05354 Debra Mitchell, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Dennis M.

633 2:20-cv-05360 Mitchell, Deceased Vonda Smith, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Thomas D.

634 2:20-cv-05368 Smith, Deceased John Johnson 2:20-cv-05380 Sharon D. Lee 2:20-cv-06715 Victor Culpepper, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lisa 637 2:20-cv-06986 Culpepper, Deceased Brenda Kellam 2:20-cv-07294 Sandra Loesche 2:20-cv-07344 Alex Montiel 2:20-cv-07345