WILSON v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al

Filing 15

MDL OPINION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL as to NAMED DEFENDANTS ONLY pursuant to CMO No. 65. [MERCK & CO. INC. D/B/A MERCK, SHARP & DOHME CORPORATION, ASTRAZENECA LP and ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP terminated]. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/24/2023. (ams, )

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 43 PageID: 269

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to:
All cases listed in Exhibit A

2:17-MD-2789 (CCC)(LDW)
(MDL 2789)
OPINION AND ORDER

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 Procedure 1 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

1

All references to Rules herein are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
At the request of the parties, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file responses to CMO No. 65 was
extended to March 31, 2022, and then to June 30, 2022. See CMO No. 67, at § I.D, ECF No. 747;
CMO No. 70, at ¶ B, ECF No. 769. The deadline for the AZ Defendants to oppose each plaintiff’s
2

1

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 43 PageID: 270

advised that “[f]ailure to comply with the terms of this Order will result in the dismissal of the case
as to the identified AZ Defendants.” CMO No. 65, 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., 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.
3
Plaintiffs note that the version of Rule 4 quoted in MCI Telecomms is no longer applicable after
an amendment in 1993. The amendment removed “good cause” as an absolute prerequisite for an
extension of service. However, as explained above, the good cause standard still exists in Rule
4(m). The amendment merely allows courts, in the absence of good cause, to exercise their
discretion to allow an extension if the circumstances warrant. Notably, the Court’s Opinion and
Order here is based on the current version of Rule 4(m).

2

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 43 PageID: 271

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

4

Though not relevant in these cases, the Court notes that AZLP, AZPLP, and Merck agreed to
accept service of a Complaint by email at [e-mail]. CMO No. 27, at § I.D,
ECF No. 260

3

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 4 of 43 PageID: 272

be dismissed. Accordingly, due to untimely service and lack of good cause shown, it is appropriate
that the AZ Defendants 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. 65 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. Lawrence Lucerne’s Resp. to Orders to Show Cause Regarding Service
of Process, at 22-24, No. 2:19-cv-04209, ECF No. 8 (“Lucerne 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. 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

4

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 5 of 43 PageID: 273

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

5

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 6 of 43 PageID: 274

(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,
25 (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

6

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 7 of 43 PageID: 275

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 910 (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

5

In June 2018, the parties entered into a tolling agreement concerning the statute of limitations.
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.

7

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 8 of 43 PageID: 276

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.
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. 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

8

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 9 of 43 PageID: 277

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

6

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.

9

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 10 of 43 PageID: 278

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. 2002228, 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

10

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 11 of 43 PageID: 279

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. 2:19cv-04209; No. 2:18-cv-04494. Plaintiffs’ first argument is thus inapplicable to the cases listed in

11

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 12 of 43 PageID: 280

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-

7

The Court also notes that even if, contrary to the record, the AZ Defendants had filed a short
form answer in any of the cases at issue here, the AZ Defendants’ reservation of rights from CMO
No. 7 would mean that service was not waived.

12

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 13 of 43 PageID: 281

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

13

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 14 of 43 PageID: 282

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.
65 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’

14

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 15 of 43 PageID: 283

requests for extensions and orders the AZ Defendants to be dismissed without prejudice from the
cases identified in Exhibit A. 8
Accordingly, IT IS 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.

CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

8

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.

15

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 16 of 43 PageID: 284
Exhibit A
Plaintiff Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Ronald Trent
Sunny Nielson
Valerie D. Bell
Antonio D. Davis
Misty Ashley
Carolyn Ellis
Fred Foscalina, As Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Betty Foscalina,
Deceased
Ronald Gardea
Paul Gann and Candance Gann
Alva Stewart
Shawney Tackett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of David L.
Francis, Deceased
Nancy M. Crockett
Lynda D. McKibben
Leonore L. Sosa
Nathaniel McDaniel
Susan Cobb
Mary E. Berry
Kerrie Griffin
Charlene Coffey
Janet Gills
Debra Grigsby
Barbara Gibson
Steven Knox
Iva Good
Larry Rutheford and Diane E. Rutheford
Cynthia Gordon
Doris Cook
Alvin Cooper, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Peggy Cooper,
Deceased
Ricky L. Graham
Norman Kydd
Jeanette Gillespie
Joyce Gettys
Joyce Covington
Della I. Gregg
Theresa Landingham
Connie L. Croy
Christopher Cracolice and Martha Ann Cracolice
Terrisina Lawrence-Mason
Dianne Webber
Deborah Kirby and Thomas Kirby
Gaye Riggle, As Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Thomas Riggle,
Deceased
Ethelyn Ruddell

Case No.
2:18-cv-03769
2:18-cv-03770
2:18-cv-03774
2:18-cv-03775
2:18-cv-03851
2:18-cv-03855
2:18-cv-03856
2:18-cv-03858
2:18-cv-03878
2:18-cv-03879
2:18-cv-03880
2:18-cv-03883
2:18-cv-03885
2:18-cv-03886
2:18-cv-03888
2:18-cv-03889
2:18-cv-03898
2:18-cv-04021
2:18-cv-04024
2:18-cv-04028
2:18-cv-04031
2:18-cv-04033
2:18-cv-04036
2:18-cv-04038
2:18-cv-04039
2:18-cv-04042
2:18-cv-04043
2:18-cv-04045
2:18-cv-04047
2:18-cv-04048
2:18-cv-04049
2:18-cv-04052
2:18-cv-04053
2:18-cv-04054
2:18-cv-04057
2:18-cv-04058
2:18-cv-04064
2:18-cv-04065
2:18-cv-04069
2:18-cv-04073
2:18-cv-04076
2:18-cv-04077

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 17 of 43 PageID: 285
Exhibit A
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

Denver Kennett and Delores Kennett
Nancy Ritterbush
Karen Reese
Willa Roberts
Tyrone Robinson
John Van Ness
Harry Hortsch
John Ortiz
Mike Moffat
Kristine S. Murff
Jeff Vider and Peggy Vider
Laurie T. Lum
Patrick Kirk and Rena Kirk
Barbara Corley
Danny Kinser
Betty L. Sanner
Valerie Taylor
Charles Ketcherside
Tia Hartmann
Grady Harris
Sue Ann Sanford
Daniel Sharp
Kathleen Johnson
Rachel Hogg
Barry Turner
Janice Givins
Gilda Saunders
Isaac S. Reid
Froncell Shannon
Mary A. Williams
Stephanie James and Bernard James
Rayshell Robinson
William Gilmore
Lorraine Smith
Deborah Harling
Samantha Hawksorth, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of David
L. Hawksworth, Deceased
Richard Hobbs
Michael Arnold
Linda Atkinson and Tommy Atkinson
Larry Brewer, Sr.
Sylvia Brooks
Herbert Banks and Myra Banks
Willien Holmes
Geneva Corbitt
Jerry Cameron
Kimberly A. Clark

2:18-cv-04078
2:18-cv-04084
2:18-cv-04086
2:18-cv-04087
2:18-cv-04088
2:18-cv-04090
2:18-cv-04093
2:18-cv-04095
2:18-cv-04139
2:18-cv-04145
2:18-cv-04151
2:18-cv-04159
2:18-cv-04163
2:18-cv-04164
2:18-cv-04167
2:18-cv-04169
2:18-cv-04173
2:18-cv-04178
2:18-cv-04180
2:18-cv-04181
2:18-cv-04182
2:18-cv-04184
2:18-cv-04190
2:18-cv-04192
2:18-cv-04193
2:18-cv-04197
2:18-cv-04198
2:18-cv-04200
2:18-cv-04207
2:18-cv-04208
2:18-cv-04209
2:18-cv-04215
2:18-cv-04216
2:18-cv-04217
2:18-cv-04218
2:18-cv-04220
2:18-cv-04222
2:18-cv-04454
2:18-cv-04459
2:18-cv-04461
2:18-cv-04462
2:18-cv-04463
2:18-cv-04464
2:18-cv-04465
2:18-cv-04467
2:18-cv-04469

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 18 of 43 PageID: 286
Exhibit A
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134

Edna Fitzsimmons
Jerry Campbell
Wendy Bess
Thelma Hampton
Donald Coble
Norman Holloway
Rozell Collins
Cassandra Howard
Kent Davis
Kathy Cook
Douglas Ivey
Sharren Crowell
Michael Lopez
Sandra Davis
Robert Parham, Jr.
Junior McDaniel
Climmie Gibbons
Teresa Harlen, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack R. Harlen,
Deceased
Herschel Merriett
Virginia Rackins
Otis Roberts
Henry Hess, Sr.
Charles Graham
Gail Semler
Laquanda Riggins
Patricia Simmons
Antonia Simmons
Jessie Martin
Mary Hankamer and Ed Hankamer
Christina Shubrick
Michael Morelock
Corliss Royal
Yvonne Sheers
Adeana Hardin
Brenda Dale
Brenda Smith-Capps
Kelly Smith
Frances Hardins
Ronald White
Delma Comer
Barbara Sapp-Greene
Mary Haynes
Sandra Young
Paul E. Wheeler
Betty Head
Kathy Shegda

2:18-cv-04472
2:18-cv-04473
2:18-cv-04474
2:18-cv-04476
2:18-cv-04478
2:18-cv-04481
2:18-cv-04482
2:18-cv-04484
2:18-cv-04486
2:18-cv-04487
2:18-cv-04488
2:18-cv-04489
2:18-cv-04494
2:18-cv-04496
2:18-cv-04497
2:18-cv-04498
2:18-cv-04499
2:18-cv-04500
2:18-cv-04503
2:18-cv-04504
2:18-cv-04507
2:18-cv-04509
2:18-cv-04510
2:18-cv-04513
2:18-cv-04514
2:18-cv-04515
2:18-cv-04517
2:18-cv-04519
2:18-cv-04520
2:18-cv-04521
2:18-cv-04522
2:18-cv-04523
2:18-cv-04524
2:18-cv-04525
2:18-cv-04526
2:18-cv-04527
2:18-cv-04529
2:18-cv-04530
2:18-cv-04531
2:18-cv-04532
2:18-cv-04533
2:18-cv-04535
2:18-cv-04536
2:18-cv-04537
2:18-cv-04538
2:18-cv-04542

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 19 of 43 PageID: 287
Exhibit A
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

Kathleen Hughes
Terria Wallace-Terrell
Philip Sawyer
Gary Nunez
Rhea Smith
Dwayne Fails
Daniel Opp
Tina Bowman
Ted Smith
Betty Brumfield
Walter Hammond and Adah Kennon
Alvin Stafford
Edward Chicarelli, Sr.
Gregory Chicarelli
Valerie Jones
John Sydnor
Jacqueline Blake
Jason Kellems
Barbara Johnson
William E. Taulbee
James Thornhill
Keith Likes
Mark Pickens
Peggy Waldron
Dawn Lockett
Carolyn Polly
Jerry Queen
Bobbie Walker
Eugenia Long
Joaquin Ramos and Linda Ramos
Margaret Manly
Janie Washington
Dena Sinnett
Brian Boyd
Rachedia Ross, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Kelli Prevo,
Deceased
Thelma Mason
Brenda Read
Julie Redderson
Harvey Chavez
Patricia J Smith
Judith Turner
Irma Santana
Michael Chivers
Sharon Turner
Paula Saul
Paula Sue Schilling

2:18-cv-04543
2:18-cv-04544
2:18-cv-04545
2:18-cv-04614
2:18-cv-04615
2:18-cv-04618
2:18-cv-04622
2:18-cv-04623
2:18-cv-04624
2:18-cv-04626
2:18-cv-04628
2:18-cv-04629
2:18-cv-04631
2:18-cv-04635
2:18-cv-04636
2:18-cv-04637
2:18-cv-04638
2:18-cv-04639
2:18-cv-04640
2:18-cv-04646
2:18-cv-04651
2:18-cv-04652
2:18-cv-04657
2:18-cv-04658
2:18-cv-04659
2:18-cv-04660
2:18-cv-04661
2:18-cv-04663
2:18-cv-04664
2:18-cv-04665
2:18-cv-04667
2:18-cv-04669
2:18-cv-04671
2:18-cv-04672
2:18-cv-04681
2:18-cv-04684
2:18-cv-04687
2:18-cv-04690
2:18-cv-04695
2:18-cv-04696
2:18-cv-04697
2:18-cv-04698
2:18-cv-04699
2:18-cv-04700
2:18-cv-04703
2:18-cv-04706

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 20 of 43 PageID: 288
Exhibit A
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227

Milton Sidwell
Wilma Wilson
Amoikon Ngouan
Roger Phillips and Margaret Phillips
Erika Short
Joseph Stephenson
Linda Swinford-Cooksey
Elizabeth Talton
Wanda Thomas
Guy Thomas
Sharon Thornhill
Isaiah Thomas
Patricia Vineyard
Donna Wicker
Michael Yardrough
Perry Trowbridge
Kathy Baumgartner
Keith Turner
Betty Dodd
Lorenzo Valenzuela
Maria Valenzuela
Patrika Vestal
Crystal Cartier
Jerry Messer
John Muncy
Linda Williams
Patricia Younger
Michael Worthen
Robert Dryden
Ricky Thomas
Christina Ward
Charla Mogg
Tommy Huff, Sr.
Renee Martinez
Ramon Barrios
Stephen Mitchell
Allen Murrow
Jerry Franklin
Myra McAllister
Marilyn McCallister
Anthony Taormina
Charles Smith
Donnie Mink
Melody Nequette
Darlene Farr
Catherine Morton-Davis
Bonnie Goodchild

2:18-cv-04708
2:18-cv-04710
2:18-cv-05032
2:18-cv-05034
2:18-cv-05035
2:18-cv-05036
2:18-cv-05037
2:18-cv-05039
2:18-cv-05040
2:18-cv-05043
2:18-cv-05044
2:18-cv-05045
2:18-cv-05046
2:18-cv-05048
2:18-cv-05050
2:18-cv-05051
2:18-cv-05052
2:18-cv-05053
2:18-cv-05054
2:18-cv-05055
2:18-cv-05057
2:18-cv-05059
2:18-cv-05063
2:18-cv-05067
2:18-cv-05071
2:18-cv-05075
2:18-cv-05078
2:18-cv-05079
2:18-cv-05081
2:18-cv-05082
2:18-cv-05083
2:18-cv-05084
2:18-cv-05086
2:18-cv-05128
2:18-cv-05129
2:18-cv-05130
2:18-cv-05132
2:18-cv-05133
2:18-cv-05134
2:18-cv-05136
2:18-cv-05137
2:18-cv-05138
2:18-cv-05140
2:18-cv-05141
2:18-cv-05143
2:18-cv-05144
2:18-cv-05146

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 21 of 43 PageID: 289
Exhibit A
228 Dana Butler
229 Phillip Harris and Denise Harris
Hermon McNac, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lillie M.
230
Butler, Deceased
231 Glenda Mays
232 Kathryn Caban
233 Christine Scott
234 Crystal Henson
235 David McMillen
236 Clara Singleton
237 Timothy Carter
238 Barbara Lambert and Paul Lambert
239 Phillip Tavegia
240 Sarah Mitchell
241 Charlotte Means
242 Richard Moran
243 Frederick Nickerson
244 Diane Murphy
245 Glenn Nemecek
246 Margorie Walker
247 Ruth Williamson
248 Harold E. Rakestraw
249 Linda Smith
250 Caroline Weatherton
251 Janie Wright
252 Marisha Miller
253 Melinda McMillen and Lawrence R. McMillen
254 Louanna Dunlap
255 Nancy Miller
256 George Hansen
257 Dwight Smith
258 Freddie Johnson
259 Rebecca Johnston
260 Alfred Vargas
261 Deanna Lacy
262 Terry Rasmussen
263 Barbara Manuel
264 Norma Williams
265 Teresa Byers
266 Adrian Nagy
267 Anthony Richardson
268 Rosemary Lehr
269 Donald Gibson
270 Lindell Shelby
271 Susan Miller
272 William Wade
273 Larry Huffman

2:18-cv-05148
2:18-cv-05150
2:18-cv-05152
2:18-cv-05153
2:18-cv-05155
2:18-cv-05158
2:18-cv-05160
2:18-cv-05161
2:18-cv-05162
2:18-cv-05163
2:18-cv-05164
2:18-cv-05165
2:18-cv-05166
2:18-cv-05167
2:18-cv-05170
2:18-cv-05171
2:18-cv-05174
2:18-cv-05177
2:18-cv-05178
2:18-cv-05179
2:18-cv-05183
2:18-cv-05186
2:18-cv-05189
2:18-cv-05190
2:18-cv-05191
2:18-cv-05194
2:18-cv-05195
2:18-cv-05197
2:18-cv-05198
2:18-cv-05202
2:18-cv-05205
2:18-cv-05206
2:18-cv-05207
2:18-cv-05208
2:18-cv-05209
2:18-cv-05212
2:18-cv-05213
2:18-cv-05431
2:18-cv-05432
2:18-cv-05434
2:18-cv-05437
2:18-cv-05438
2:18-cv-05439
2:18-cv-05441
2:18-cv-05449
2:18-cv-05451

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 22 of 43 PageID: 290
Exhibit A
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318

William Wegis
Darrell Craw
Gerald Whatley
Joseph Cervantes
Sherry Hunt
Kit Middleton
Sandra Garrett
Hilda Johnson
Tony Hernandez
Bryan Swanson
Pamela Clark
Melvin Stubbs
Brett Timothy
Linda M. Williams
Cecelia Clipper
Jennifer Wolfe
Catherine Farrell
Sharon Powers
Arthur Warshawsky
Martha Burns
Gary Robertson
Kyle Rose
Margie Jennings
Rickey Crihfield, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Miki L.
Crihfield, deceased
Jeffrey Jones
Deborah Lee
Ellen Moritt
Burma Sizemore
Bob Hoover
Carmen Stevens
Samantha Lawson
Shirley Teel, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Ezra C. Teel,
Deceased
Margie Delauder
Brenda Bunch
Richard Cannon
Melissa Curry
Brenda Dye
Sheryl Gerald
Cedric Florence
Dennis Lane
Marsha Layman
Joyce Noble
Samantha Riddle
Richard Slate
Gwenda Steele

2:18-cv-05453
2:18-cv-05454
2:18-cv-05455
2:18-cv-05456
2:18-cv-05457
2:18-cv-05461
2:18-cv-05463
2:18-cv-05464
2:18-cv-05472
2:18-cv-05476
2:18-cv-05478
2:18-cv-05479
2:18-cv-05481
2:18-cv-05482
2:18-cv-05483
2:18-cv-05485
2:18-cv-05487
2:18-cv-05488
2:18-cv-05490
2:18-cv-05495
2:18-cv-05499
2:18-cv-05500
2:18-cv-05501
2:18-cv-05502
2:18-cv-05504
2:18-cv-05507
2:18-cv-05509
2:18-cv-05511
2:18-cv-05513
2:18-cv-05516
2:18-cv-05520
2:18-cv-05521
2:18-cv-05526
2:18-cv-05942
2:18-cv-05947
2:18-cv-05952
2:18-cv-05956
2:18-cv-05959
2:18-cv-05960
2:18-cv-05962
2:18-cv-05964
2:18-cv-05968
2:18-cv-05971
2:18-cv-05973
2:18-cv-05975

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 23 of 43 PageID: 291
Exhibit A
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364

Barbara Gibson, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Alta Gibson,
Deceased
William Taylor
Janet Washington
George Hawkins
Dana Wilson
Michael Longacre
Linda Martin
Debra O'Neal
Elnora Pope
Susan Reedy
Debbie Reynolds
Lacy Skinner
Linda Wilson
Brenda Young
Kathryn Anderson
Larry Basham and Linda Basham
Mary Hollander
Lance Faulkner
Christina Ford
Ruby Brake
Sharon Reid
Jimmy Brown
Bartholomew Gaiera and Karen Gaiera
Gregry Russell
Kathlene Brown
Sarah Brown
Sonjia Short
Donald Silas
Rita Bentley
Rebecca Harrington
Linda Buie
Patricia Hasty
John Copp
Sherry Davis
Garry Jackson
Richard Jackson and Judy Fontenot
John Whatley
Eugene Johnson
Beverly Elgan
Susan Downs
Cardell Woodard
Sharon Farris
Junita Horn
Bonnie Mize
Jackie Knight
Sarah Landry

2:18-cv-05976
2:18-cv-05977
2:18-cv-05978
2:18-cv-05980
2:18-cv-05982
2:18-cv-05988
2:18-cv-05989
2:18-cv-05993
2:18-cv-05995
2:18-cv-05996
2:18-cv-05997
2:18-cv-06000
2:18-cv-06002
2:18-cv-06003
2:18-cv-06134
2:18-cv-06138
2:18-cv-06148
2:18-cv-06154
2:18-cv-06157
2:18-cv-06161
2:18-cv-06164
2:18-cv-06165
2:18-cv-06166
2:18-cv-06169
2:18-cv-06171
2:18-cv-06175
2:18-cv-06177
2:18-cv-06180
2:18-cv-06184
2:18-cv-06196
2:18-cv-06198
2:18-cv-06202
2:18-cv-06204
2:18-cv-06206
2:18-cv-06207
2:18-cv-06214
2:18-cv-06216
2:18-cv-06222
2:18-cv-06223
2:18-cv-06224
2:18-cv-06225
2:18-cv-06227
2:18-cv-06231
2:18-cv-06232
2:18-cv-06233
2:18-cv-06239

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 24 of 43 PageID: 292
Exhibit A
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399

Richard Guiterrez
Richard Leonard
Karla Lee
Theodore Logan, Jr.
Sonja Prince
Belinda Holland
Tunya Lowe
Steve Thompson
Dorothy Van Horn
Sandra Walling
Marlene McIntyre
Michael Wetselline
Patina Johnson
Billy Largen and Donna Brown
Lillian Paxton
Bob Russom
Susan White, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Eugene
Kujawski, Deceased
Johnny Daniels
Emilee Palmer and Michael D. Palmer
Mary Nordby, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Joan Jackson,
Deceased
Tina Thornburg
Ennis Dunning
Marsha Graham, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Gary
Graham, Deceased
Kevin Harper
Travis Charlton, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia
Halbert, Deceased
Ima Young and Hollis Young-Wheely
Lesa Honn, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Leonard Honn, Deceased
Teresa Alvarez, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Thomas Alvarez, Deceased
Rosie Alvarez, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Urbano Alvarez, Deceased
Nina Fernandez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Sanra Nobil,
Deceased
Bradley Olson and Shirley Olson
Bernice Haley, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Dennis Ray Haley, Deceased
Jerry Blosser, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Wanda Blosser, Deceased
Norma Stillwagoner
Debbie Edgell, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Jackie Edgell, Deceased

2:18-cv-06240
2:18-cv-06244
2:18-cv-06245
2:18-cv-06250
2:18-cv-06251
2:18-cv-06253
2:18-cv-06256
2:18-cv-06260
2:18-cv-06264
2:18-cv-06268
2:18-cv-06270
2:18-cv-06271
2:18-cv-06274
2:18-cv-06278
2:18-cv-06284
2:18-cv-06288
2:18-cv-06432
2:18-cv-06440
2:18-cv-06449
2:18-cv-06450
2:18-cv-06456
2:18-cv-06460
2:18-cv-06467
2:18-cv-06473
2:18-cv-06476
2:18-cv-06480
2:18-cv-06481
2:18-cv-06484
2:18-cv-06488
2:18-cv-06497
2:18-cv-06498
2:18-cv-06504
2:18-cv-06515
2:18-cv-06520
2:18-cv-06521

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 25 of 43 PageID: 293
Exhibit A
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434

Karen Keenan, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Larry Keenan, Deceased
Shirley Morton, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Delbert P Morton Sr., Deceased
James McDade, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Laverne
McDade, Deceased
Gina Zerby, Individually and as the Proposed Representative of Michael
Zerby, Deceased
Lillian Paxton, Individually and as Proposed Representatie of the Estate of
John Paxton, Deceased
Michelle Wilson
Rita Johnson, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lessie Tharpe,
Deceased
Emily Knotts, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cheryl Stefenel,
Deceased
William Cavanaugh and Margaret Cavanaugh
Julie Cross
Jacquelyn Booker
Dianne Caldwell
Brenda Cameron
Leona Collins, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Deniese Collins, Deceased
Patrick Connors
Larry Ludwick
Gladys Maddox
Frank Rendon
Johnnie Oliver
Charles Jones, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Victoria Jones,
Deceased
John Cole
Helen Robinson
Dorothy Alegria, As the Representative of the Estate of Edwin Alegria,
deceased
Charles Howard
Luvern Purnell
Amy Qualles
Teresa Hill-Ibrahim
Barbara Burger
Kathy Lockhart
Dionna McGairk
Vertis Kellam
Judy Bradshaw, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Jimmy Bradshaw, Deceased
Richard Oyerbides, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Rebecca Mobley, Deceased
Shane Kilgore
Judy Wolford

2:18-cv-06522
2:18-cv-06527
2:18-cv-06528
2:18-cv-06532
2:18-cv-06533
2:18-cv-06540
2:18-cv-06549
2:18-cv-06552
2:18-cv-06791
2:18-cv-06800
2:18-cv-06834
2:18-cv-06846
2:18-cv-06854
2:18-cv-06869
2:18-cv-06876
2:18-cv-06937
2:18-cv-06939
2:18-cv-06940
2:18-cv-06947
2:18-cv-06952
2:18-cv-06962
2:18-cv-06963
2:18-cv-06966
2:18-cv-06986
2:18-cv-06997
2:18-cv-07001
2:18-cv-07005
2:18-cv-07027
2:18-cv-07032
2:18-cv-07043
2:18-cv-07048
2:18-cv-07049
2:18-cv-07052
2:18-cv-07057
2:18-cv-07079

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 26 of 43 PageID: 294
Exhibit A
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472

Aquinda Woodrum
Virginia Boyd
Carl Evans Jr. and Carolyn Evans
Herman Firmin
Cornelius Bentley Sr.
Herbert Johnson
Joan Stoveken, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Gay
Stoveken, Deceased
Angela Spicer, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
James Spicer, Deceased
Amanda Turner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Ronald Turner, Deceased
Christopher Crittenden
Jessie Darby, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Donnie Darby, Deceased
Malissa Wilson
Erick Barnes
John Norton
Tammy Perry
Brenda Fletcher
Nancy Esque
Kathleen King
Robert Brown
Diane McGee, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kevin
McGee, Deceased
Mary Laffoon
George Gale
Clarence Abrams
Bonnie Apple
Helen Cannon
Sharon Ayers-Johnson
Olivia Hogan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Maggie Harrison, Deceased
Brenda Bell
Thomas Russo
Forest Moore
Paul Lue, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Hyacinth
Johnson, Deceased
Ernestine Mays-Mitchell, Individually and as the Representative of the
Estate of Ernest Mays, Deceased
Clarence Rich
Cynthia Stapleton
Alice Williams
Birdie Woods
Lynette Tucker
Mary Murphy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Garland Murphy, Deceased

2:18-cv-07084
2:18-cv-07090
2:18-cv-07106
2:18-cv-07110
2:18-cv-07112
2:18-cv-07130
2:18-cv-07137
2:18-cv-07148
2:18-cv-07153
2:18-cv-07154
2:18-cv-07156
2:18-cv-07170
2:18-cv-07187
2:18-cv-07192
2:18-cv-07194
2:18-cv-07203
2:18-cv-07208
2:18-cv-07228
2:18-cv-07234
2:18-cv-07239
2:18-cv-07243
2:18-cv-07267
2:18-cv-07270
2:18-cv-07287
2:18-cv-07302
2:18-cv-07313
2:18-cv-07319
2:18-cv-07333
2:18-cv-07340
2:18-cv-07351
2:18-cv-07352
2:18-cv-07365
2:18-cv-07373
2:18-cv-07381
2:18-cv-07390
2:18-cv-07438
2:18-cv-07441
2:18-cv-07450

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 27 of 43 PageID: 295
Exhibit A
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510

Ronald Chasteen
Douglas Dennison
Kathleen White
Shirley Newsome
Lloyd Fleenor
Jamie Morgan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Bernard Morgan, Deceased
Cecelia Roberts
Tammy Taylor
Bessie Madden
Frank Tropier, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Irene
Tropier, Deceased
Deborah King, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Eva
Manley, Deceased
Curtis Blankenship
Betty Apellido
Ora Groves
Gloria Dietrich
Robin Eden
Walker Howell
Stephanie Ralston-Bailey
Laura Richie
Regina Salisbury
Marlene Hatfield
Caren Singer
Randall Morton
Sharon Nali
Irvin Albright
Mary Ann Negrete, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Hiram Negrete, Deceased
William Solis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Aura
Burgos, Deceased
Ronald Klinenberg
Linda Weller, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Marjorie Beecher, Deceased
Luis Nesta
Lorraine Turco
Delorise Marks
Mildred Hernandez, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Charles Varela, Deceased
Hazel Phillips
Elvia Quiroga, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Pedro Quiroga, Deceased
Tracie Powers
Mary Rivali, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Robert
Rivali, Deceased
Roger Nelson

2:18-cv-07474
2:18-cv-07488
2:18-cv-07501
2:18-cv-07503
2:18-cv-07515
2:18-cv-07526
2:18-cv-07534
2:18-cv-07538
2:18-cv-07541
2:18-cv-07544
2:18-cv-07550
2:18-cv-07553
2:18-cv-07557
2:18-cv-07590
2:18-cv-07592
2:18-cv-07613
2:18-cv-07616
2:18-cv-07617
2:18-cv-07622
2:18-cv-07632
2:18-cv-07639
2:18-cv-07640
2:18-cv-07662
2:18-cv-07667
2:18-cv-07669
2:18-cv-07671
2:18-cv-07688
2:18-cv-07706
2:18-cv-07707
2:18-cv-07708
2:18-cv-07713
2:18-cv-07716
2:18-cv-07724
2:18-cv-07748
2:18-cv-07751
2:18-cv-07756
2:18-cv-07760
2:18-cv-07773

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 28 of 43 PageID: 296
Exhibit A
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553

Marilyn Sullivan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Evelyn Sullivan, Deceased
Bernadine Hardie
Peter Guerrero
Delisha Thomas
Joel Neidlinger
Deanna Shafer
Michael Barnett
Susan Hageman, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack
Hageman, Deceased
Dennis Kendall
Quintin Dennis
Ruth Dobson
Martha Griffith
William Hall
Gloria Haywood
James Amato
Ruth Hurd
Eric Hurwitz
Patricia Joppien
Paul Jozwiak
Ethel Birch
Michele Blomont
George Bonis
Raymond Bryant
John Bottoms
Cindy Campbell
Colleen Cantwell
Janis Carlton, Individually and as the Representative fo the Estate of
Arland Carlton Jr., Deceased
Gladys Carpenter
Pete Caudillo
Brandon Cole
Robert Crenshaw
Wanda Crager
Jason Daniels
Linda McMillen
Odessa Mitchell
Patricia Mitchell
Charles Newsom
Orestes Diaz
Helmut Otto
Charlotte Edgar
Carey Bowie, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Henry
Bowie, Deceased
William Elias
Warren Ketchmore

2:18-cv-07781
2:18-cv-07795
2:18-cv-07796
2:18-cv-07801
2:18-cv-07833
2:18-cv-07851
2:19-cv-01055
2:19-cv-01584
2:19-cv-01668
2:19-cv-01813
2:19-cv-01849
2:19-cv-01853
2:19-cv-01859
2:19-cv-01881
2:19-cv-01883
2:19-cv-01887
2:19-cv-01889
2:19-cv-01897
2:19-cv-01902
2:19-cv-01914
2:19-cv-01923
2:19-cv-01931
2:19-cv-01939
2:19-cv-01945
2:19-cv-01948
2:19-cv-01965
2:19-cv-01976
2:19-cv-01981
2:19-cv-01990
2:19-cv-02004
2:19-cv-02011
2:19-cv-02012
2:19-cv-02015
2:19-cv-02035
2:19-cv-02040
2:19-cv-02048
2:19-cv-02050
2:19-cv-02059
2:19-cv-02061
2:19-cv-02074
2:19-cv-02086
2:19-cv-02089
2:19-cv-02102

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 29 of 43 PageID: 297
Exhibit A
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592

Juan Cantu, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Margarita Cantu, Deceased
Juanita Landers
Johnny Fritts
Karen Gaines
Brenda McCurdy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Rickey McCurdy, Deceased
Gloria Hernandez
Cynthia McDonald, As the representative of the Estate of Helen
McDonald, deceased
Bridgette Long
Nettie Overton, individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Charlie Overton, Deceased
Glenda Long
Melissa Olson
Sandra Pannell
Priscille Parent
Lucretia Peavy
Mabel Perry
Glenna Pool
Debra Primrose
Margaret Pryor, As the Representative of the Estate of Keith Pryor,
deceased
Joyce Sheffield
Terry Sheffield
Esther Rangel, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Armando Rangel, Deceased
Henry Shuster
John Silva
Lionel Smith
Linda Stockwell
Diane Watkins
James Williams
Charles Wiley
Darwin Valentine
Linda Wood
Susan Lynn Wright, Individually and as the Representatie of the Estate of
Tabitha Wright, Deceased
Denise Brown
Donna Wooten
Andra Henderson
Darryl Herod
Michael Prilla
John Choyce
Cheryl Adams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Belle Collins,
Deceased
Elia Carrillo

2:19-cv-02104
2:19-cv-02127
2:19-cv-02128
2:19-cv-02136
2:19-cv-02143
2:19-cv-02147
2:19-cv-02157
2:19-cv-02159
2:19-cv-02174
2:19-cv-02175
2:19-cv-02204
2:19-cv-02246
2:19-cv-02261
2:19-cv-02275
2:19-cv-02318
2:19-cv-02335
2:19-cv-02356
2:19-cv-02367
2:19-cv-02377
2:19-cv-02386
2:19-cv-02404
2:19-cv-02445
2:19-cv-02454
2:19-cv-02464
2:19-cv-02475
2:19-cv-02484
2:19-cv-02487
2:19-cv-02493
2:19-cv-02547
2:19-cv-02562
2:19-cv-02577
2:19-cv-02581
2:19-cv-02586
2:19-cv-02743
2:19-cv-02748
2:19-cv-02955
2:19-cv-02988
2:19-cv-02996
2:19-cv-03068

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 30 of 43 PageID: 298
Exhibit A
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638

Jeffrey Carter, Sr.
Carla Comer
Leota Conrad
John Covell
Cynthia Etheridge
Nancy Fennell
Nellie Ferguson
Treva Graves
Terry Haynes
Bertha Gable
Georgia Jackson-Wade
Rhonda Gomez
Kevin Goss
Paula Jones
Merle Kirkland
Mark Lacombe
Dennis Lacy
Lisa Peters
Shelia Holmes
Edward Miller
Brandon Hugghins
Sylvia Perez
Linda Phillips
Michelle Inman
Charlene Jackson
Brenda Ridyolph
Paula Jackson
Sandi Robinson
Wanda Rogers
Barbara Steele
Bettye Stockton
Erick Joe
Nancy Sullivan
Shirley Swope
Cynthia Tucker
Shirlie Johnson
Dante Wilder
Moses Willmore
Lidia Yanez
Ronald E. Ker
Karen Collins, As proposed representative of the Estate of Charles Collins,
deceased
Carolyn Coule and Jerome Coule
Joel Kight
Rosetta Cunningham
Helen Davis
Paul E. Dilocker

2:19-cv-03069
2:19-cv-03073
2:19-cv-03075
2:19-cv-03078
2:19-cv-03118
2:19-cv-03132
2:19-cv-03137
2:19-cv-03142
2:19-cv-03163
2:19-cv-03165
2:19-cv-03193
2:19-cv-03217
2:19-cv-03252
2:19-cv-03256
2:19-cv-03272
2:19-cv-03277
2:19-cv-03284
2:19-cv-03312
2:19-cv-03327
2:19-cv-03340
2:19-cv-03366
2:19-cv-03368
2:19-cv-03376
2:19-cv-03391
2:19-cv-03415
2:19-cv-03419
2:19-cv-03433
2:19-cv-03435
2:19-cv-03445
2:19-cv-03458
2:19-cv-03467
2:19-cv-03476
2:19-cv-03477
2:19-cv-03480
2:19-cv-03489
2:19-cv-03494
2:19-cv-03508
2:19-cv-03520
2:19-cv-03524
2:19-cv-03528
2:19-cv-03537
2:19-cv-03544
2:19-cv-03545
2:19-cv-03553
2:19-cv-03561
2:19-cv-03589

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 31 of 43 PageID: 299
Exhibit A
639 Ruth Edwards
Rickie Swonger, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Joyce Boyer,
640
Deceased
641 Carl Brewer, Jr.
Lowanda Ford, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of William Ford,
642
Deceased
643 Phillip Cottle
644 Linda Fresquez
645 Timothy Buzard
646 Diana Greathouse
Lena Turknett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Gaines,
647
Deceased
648 Suzanne Coleman-Cunningham
649 Maria Garcia
Betty Hunter, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
650
Thomas Hunter, Deceased
651 Noreen Davis-Xanthis
652 Harrison Gift, III
653 Juanita Mekwuye
654 Lucille Dunson
655 Bernadette Green
656 Barbara Zajack
657 Ruthie Griffin
658 Melba Fabel
659 Jennifer Collins
660 Cecile Fichtner
661 Melissa Harris
662 Tracy Henderson
663 Linwood Flemister
664 Kathlene Henson and Ernest Henson
665 Elizabeth Flournoy
666 Cathleen James
667 James Franklin, Sr.
Cyndi Mazza, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Josephine
668
Kempf, Deceased
669 Cynthia Lawhorn
670 Adeline Henderson
671 Linda Martinez
672 Lynell Johnson
673 Michael Jones
674 Cara Kreider
675 Stephen McNeill
676 Richard Lombardo
677 Linda Metcalf
678 Matilde Lopez
679 Kathleen Mirarchi
680 Wilma Miller

2:19-cv-03595
2:19-cv-03596
2:19-cv-03605
2:19-cv-03612
2:19-cv-03618
2:19-cv-03624
2:19-cv-03626
2:19-cv-03633
2:19-cv-03636
2:19-cv-03638
2:19-cv-03644
2:19-cv-03645
2:19-cv-03646
2:19-cv-03651
2:19-cv-03652
2:19-cv-03661
2:19-cv-03662
2:19-cv-03663
2:19-cv-03670
2:19-cv-03671
2:19-cv-03679
2:19-cv-03681
2:19-cv-03684
2:19-cv-03685
2:19-cv-03686
2:19-cv-03687
2:19-cv-03697
2:19-cv-03707
2:19-cv-03711
2:19-cv-03716
2:19-cv-03739
2:19-cv-03769
2:19-cv-03777
2:19-cv-03784
2:19-cv-03806
2:19-cv-03817
2:19-cv-03823
2:19-cv-03826
2:19-cv-03836
2:19-cv-03839
2:19-cv-03841
2:19-cv-03849

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 32 of 43 PageID: 300
Exhibit A
681 Tammy Phipps
Melissa Konarski, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
682
Pamela Zaccardi, Deceased
683 Patty Anderson
684 Kevin Takacs
685 Patricia E. Thomas
686 Brandon Ward
687 Darren Williams
688 Belinda Laird
689 Robert Williams
690 Gaye Young
691 Julie Long
692 Fidencio Lopez
693 Anita Loudy
694 Harold Martin
695 Fernando Martinez, Jr.
696 Sandra Detherage
697 Carol Rosenblum
698 Linda Barnett
Bernice Elkins, As the Representative of the Estate of Chilles Elkins,
699
Deceased
700 Susan Payne
701 Keith Ellery
702 Kerry Bland
703 Denise Garrette
704 Josette Schaffer
705 Barbara Grant
706 Lynn Seabrook
707 Mary C. Smith
John Danso, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Vickie
708
Danso, Deceased
709 Rachel Smith
710 Lawrence Lucerne
711 Rickey E. Vice
712 Sandra Mason
713 Cheryl Woody
714 Beverly McCaleb
Veda McDonald-Rhodes, Individually and as the Representative of the
715
Estate of Andre McDonald, Deceased
716 Joanne Smith
717 Lee Spaulding
718 Diane Wood
719 Marvin Edwards
720 John Mangum
721 Robert McKim
722 Paul Shrode

2:19-cv-03863
2:19-cv-03869
2:19-cv-03889
2:19-cv-03921
2:19-cv-03980
2:19-cv-03987
2:19-cv-04012
2:19-cv-04031
2:19-cv-04036
2:19-cv-04050
2:19-cv-04094
2:19-cv-04111
2:19-cv-04113
2:19-cv-04125
2:19-cv-04130
2:19-cv-04133
2:19-cv-04146
2:19-cv-04152
2:19-cv-04161
2:19-cv-04162
2:19-cv-04166
2:19-cv-04178
2:19-cv-04188
2:19-cv-04192
2:19-cv-04197
2:19-cv-04198
2:19-cv-04202
2:19-cv-04204
2:19-cv-04207
2:19-cv-04209
2:19-cv-04211
2:19-cv-04218
2:19-cv-04223
2:19-cv-04224
2:19-cv-04228
2:19-cv-04234
2:19-cv-04238
2:19-cv-04242
2:19-cv-04248
2:19-cv-04263
2:19-cv-04266
2:19-cv-04267

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 33 of 43 PageID: 301
Exhibit A
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768

Mary Nicholson, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Winnie L.
Nicholson, Deceased
Robert C. Lopez
Mary Burchett
Greg Cadjew
Anabel Campbell
Clarice Boutin
Joanna E. Campbell
Quinten W. Bowen
Michael Bowen
Cathleen A. Brooks
Don Burleson-Castillo
Terri L. Banfield
Lisa Brookshire
Melinda J. Burns
Catherine Antwine
Roy D. Burress
Jackie L. Brown
Joseph A. Archer
Margie T. Bannister
Danny Asti
Leta Bannon
Janice Weibley, on behalf of Elizabeth L. Boyd
Cassandra Bell
Debra Bramblett
Douglas Ball
Laquiche L. Benjamin
Brent Bregan
Sharon L. Bennett
Charita R. Brown
Johnny Brown
Todd Brown
Yvonne Abrams
Lisa D. Binder
Ricky W. Barley
Candy J. Bryant
Tammie Y. Cheatham
Charles A. Biondillo
Dennis Bunch
Sherman Bunnell
Ruth Cassidy
Lisa Jo Albright
Brian D. Alexander
Josephine Basey
Damisha L. Bishop
Joe Alfieri
Christine S. Basile

2:19-cv-04276
2:19-cv-04342
2:19-cv-04470
2:19-cv-04473
2:19-cv-04485
2:19-cv-04486
2:19-cv-04492
2:19-cv-04497
2:19-cv-04503
2:19-cv-04504
2:19-cv-04505
2:19-cv-04506
2:19-cv-04510
2:19-cv-04515
2:19-cv-04516
2:19-cv-04517
2:19-cv-04518
2:19-cv-04519
2:19-cv-04528
2:19-cv-04534
2:19-cv-04535
2:19-cv-04537
2:19-cv-04548
2:19-cv-04561
2:19-cv-04572
2:19-cv-04573
2:19-cv-04574
2:19-cv-04580
2:19-cv-04586
2:19-cv-04592
2:19-cv-04595
2:19-cv-04617
2:19-cv-04628
2:19-cv-04629
2:19-cv-04630
2:19-cv-04634
2:19-cv-04643
2:19-cv-04650
2:19-cv-04653
2:19-cv-04664
2:19-cv-04674
2:19-cv-04680
2:19-cv-04681
2:19-cv-04684
2:19-cv-04690
2:19-cv-04700

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 34 of 43 PageID: 302
Exhibit A
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814

Shirley Bass
Sylvia J. Cotton
Gerald E. Coyle
Alice Baxter
Joe Bean
Jackie Crawford
Ruth V. Cleveland
Anna Gonzalez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Beatrice Ceja,
Deceased
Derrick A. Cloud
Sharon Brewer
Etta M. Brewer
Tiena Britt
Joe Dehart
Jose Deleon
Twila M. Dillon
Richard Dismuke
Larry Cole
Joel Chapa
Leif E. Anderson
Mary Eddy
Dora Chatman
Stephen Eaton
David A. Ealy
Jack Cunningham
Clara C. Dacko
Linda Duffy
Jean C. Darby
Tina Dasher
Mark A. Anderson
Arnada F. Davis
Jamie Davis
Augusta L. Colson
John Elliott
David Andrews
Deborah K. Elmer
Lori A. Enos
Adela Anguiano
Troy Ersch
Theresa Cooper
Doris Crutchfield
Kevin Carr
Letrell Cuff
Robbin Carridine
Catherine Carroll
Lula M. Day
James F. Dean

2:19-cv-04703
2:19-cv-04709
2:19-cv-04719
2:19-cv-04722
2:19-cv-04730
2:19-cv-04734
2:19-cv-04735
2:19-cv-04750
2:19-cv-04756
2:19-cv-04761
2:19-cv-04762
2:19-cv-04773
2:19-cv-04776
2:19-cv-04781
2:19-cv-04790
2:19-cv-04792
2:19-cv-04798
2:19-cv-04810
2:19-cv-04821
2:19-cv-04825
2:19-cv-04826
2:19-cv-04829
2:19-cv-04837
2:19-cv-04844
2:19-cv-04848
2:19-cv-04862
2:19-cv-04878
2:19-cv-04882
2:19-cv-04883
2:19-cv-04906
2:19-cv-04907
2:19-cv-04909
2:19-cv-04913
2:19-cv-04914
2:19-cv-04918
2:19-cv-04925
2:19-cv-04927
2:19-cv-04932
2:19-cv-04939
2:19-cv-04944
2:19-cv-04950
2:19-cv-04951
2:19-cv-04952
2:19-cv-04960
2:19-cv-04961
2:19-cv-04967

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 35 of 43 PageID: 303
Exhibit A
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861

Pamela Fix
John Fry
Angela Clinton
Pat J. Evans
Cynthia Bonacci
Robin Fizhugh
Joyce Carvalho
Calvin Carver
Sherley L. Booker
Lee Booth
Albert V. Borboa
Evelyn W. Frey
Mary Duncan
Mary Jane Franklin
Gerardo Gallaga
Libia Felix
Charlotte Edwards
Amber N. Felthauser
Dorthy Edwards
Jacqualine Ferera
Beverly Ficklin
Keith Franklin
Walter Gaddis
Matilda Gagliardi
Barbara S. Foutty
Debbie A. Garcia
Sue A. Fink
Susan K. Kellar
Robert L. Johnson, Jr.
Susan K. Kelley
Timothy Henry
Angela K. Henry
David M. Huddleston
Glenda Jackson
Bobby G Jones
Darlene Huettenberger
Gary D. Johnson
Vivian Knudsen
Annie M Jones
Gordon Hills
Barbara A. Jones
Vickie L. Jones
Ronnie W. Johnson
Vickie Kemp
Kathleen F. Kimble
Michael Hurley
Wesley Hurt

2:19-cv-04972
2:19-cv-04976
2:19-cv-04981
2:19-cv-04986
2:19-cv-04994
2:19-cv-05006
2:19-cv-05016
2:19-cv-05022
2:19-cv-05027
2:19-cv-05052
2:19-cv-05053
2:19-cv-05069
2:19-cv-05072
2:19-cv-05073
2:19-cv-05089
2:19-cv-05094
2:19-cv-05097
2:19-cv-05098
2:19-cv-05099
2:19-cv-05102
2:19-cv-05111
2:19-cv-05112
2:19-cv-05115
2:19-cv-05119
2:19-cv-05132
2:19-cv-05135
2:19-cv-05138
2:19-cv-05166
2:19-cv-05168
2:19-cv-05174
2:19-cv-05177
2:19-cv-05185
2:19-cv-05186
2:19-cv-05193
2:19-cv-05196
2:19-cv-05197
2:19-cv-05199
2:19-cv-05209
2:19-cv-05217
2:19-cv-05220
2:19-cv-05230
2:19-cv-05242
2:19-cv-05247
2:19-cv-05249
2:19-cv-05263
2:19-cv-05267
2:19-cv-05271

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 36 of 43 PageID: 304
Exhibit A
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907

Billy R. Johns
Donna Hines
Virginia Johnson Gruver
Margaret Jordan
Williard I. Justice
Jane Krause
Carol M. Kristian
Tammy Jobe
Connie Ivory
Karen C. King
Jerry R. Kingery
Constance Gary
Henry H. Hessen
Patrick W. Lacke
Barton S. Hickey
Cinda Geerlings
Pamela Kazak
David Gilbert
Romona Kea
Phyllis j. Kinsey
Edward W. Gildner
Lisa Keith
Deborah Gilstrap
Marion Francis Keith
Sue Langham
William D. Hinshaw
Mark D. Hochul
Kathleen Lalor
Nancy K. Garza
Richard Graham
Louise Jones
June S. Grumbein
Sarah Holland
Ronald W. Grissom
Darren Gines
Milton E. Hansen, Jr.
Loyce A. Hampson
Teresa Haney
Linda Guzman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Barbara
Guzman, Deceased
Connie Gamez
Jesse Hales
Paul Glasper
Shelley M. Harder
Anne A. Headrick
Sandra S. Hart
John D. Harrison

2:19-cv-05273
2:19-cv-05275
2:19-cv-05281
2:19-cv-05295
2:19-cv-05304
2:19-cv-05312
2:19-cv-05315
2:19-cv-05319
2:19-cv-05324
2:19-cv-05327
2:19-cv-05328
2:19-cv-05335
2:19-cv-05341
2:19-cv-05349
2:19-cv-05353
2:19-cv-05359
2:19-cv-05369
2:19-cv-05370
2:19-cv-05375
2:19-cv-05376
2:19-cv-05379
2:19-cv-05385
2:19-cv-05387
2:19-cv-05391
2:19-cv-05401
2:19-cv-05415
2:19-cv-05428
2:19-cv-05507
2:19-cv-05528
2:19-cv-05544
2:19-cv-05548
2:19-cv-05558
2:19-cv-05563
2:19-cv-05600
2:19-cv-05608
2:19-cv-05610
2:19-cv-05623
2:19-cv-05636
2:19-cv-05649
2:19-cv-05652
2:19-cv-05697
2:19-cv-05699
2:19-cv-05703
2:19-cv-05728
2:19-cv-05731
2:19-cv-05734

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 37 of 43 PageID: 305
Exhibit A
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952

Melvin W. Hendryx
Verna Heideman
Derric R. Henderson
Jason A. Head
Vanessa Harper
Jeffrey A Heaps
Barbara A. Harper
Rhonda Leopold
Carol A. Lentz
Terica Lemon
Alberta Lee
Jerry Lawley, Jr.
Delois Miller
Gail H. Mills
Joseph Mirabile
Barbara Mire
Berchia M. Mitchell
Jason R. Mitchell
Alice Moore
Linda L. Hopkins
Kimberly A. Horn
Veronica C. Williams
Zane Libert, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Julianna Libert,
deceased
Jerry Winthrop
Joe N. Little
Betty J. Withrow
Teena Williams
Kevin Wilson
Desiree Lovins
Robert R. Houser
Judith Lambert
Anthony Lanas
Juliana Wimberly
Betty Lowther
Joseph W. Lucas
Candace M. Malin
Helen M. Martinez
Raul Martinez
Rebecca Meader
Shekina D. Mason
Jacobus Mekes
Sharon W. Mellott, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Jerry
W. Mellott, deceased
Deborah Mercer
Kym Matthews
Lynda Mercer

2:19-cv-05745
2:19-cv-05750
2:19-cv-05773
2:19-cv-05847
2:19-cv-05850
2:19-cv-05853
2:19-cv-05864
2:19-cv-06011
2:19-cv-06012
2:19-cv-06014
2:19-cv-06017
2:19-cv-06026
2:19-cv-06069
2:19-cv-06072
2:19-cv-06078
2:19-cv-06079
2:19-cv-06106
2:19-cv-06110
2:19-cv-06123
2:19-cv-06152
2:19-cv-06160
2:19-cv-06193
2:19-cv-06198
2:19-cv-06213
2:19-cv-06225
2:19-cv-06226
2:19-cv-06236
2:19-cv-06305
2:19-cv-06323
2:19-cv-06349
2:19-cv-06352
2:19-cv-06354
2:19-cv-06370
2:19-cv-06374
2:19-cv-06376
2:19-cv-06392
2:19-cv-06426
2:19-cv-06429
2:19-cv-06437
2:19-cv-06439
2:19-cv-06443
2:19-cv-06445
2:19-cv-06452
2:19-cv-06455
2:19-cv-06456

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 38 of 43 PageID: 306
Exhibit A
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995

Lena Woolfolk
Jessie M. Merriweather
Oliver T. Mihm
Henry G. Miles
Lora Wilson
Alexander J. Mayfield
Teresa Mayo
Arlene Miller
Thelma McClellen
Brenda McConnachie
Dee A. Mankins
Iris L. Manning
Grachell L. Manuel
Janet S. Markello
Douglas Worden
Joann C. Worden
Marilyn Young
Missouri McCann
Hollis Q. Moore
Antonio Morales
Anna M. Morales
August Morella
Jessie Noiel
Jeffrey A. Oakley
Norma J. Ochoa
Marilyn D. Ojeda
Mindy Oosting
William H. Morgan
Marilyn A. Palma
Darrell M. Papaleo
Betty A. Parks
Kay Parks
Maria D. Parovel
Deborah L Patterson
Lisa York-Williams
Shirley Murray
Sandy Myers
Renato Natal
Andrenette Marshall
Daniel Peters
David Peterson, Sr.
Leonard Nesbitt
Cherri D. Young
Rachel Martinez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Richard
996
Martinez, Deceased
997 Annette K. Morris
998 Neal H. Pleasant

2:19-cv-06457
2:19-cv-06460
2:19-cv-06482
2:19-cv-06486
2:19-cv-06490
2:19-cv-06491
2:19-cv-06495
2:19-cv-06496
2:19-cv-06520
2:19-cv-06522
2:19-cv-06533
2:19-cv-06534
2:19-cv-06537
2:19-cv-06540
2:19-cv-06542
2:19-cv-06550
2:19-cv-06599
2:19-cv-06614
2:19-cv-06637
2:19-cv-06641
2:19-cv-06642
2:19-cv-06644
2:19-cv-06649
2:19-cv-06656
2:19-cv-06657
2:19-cv-06660
2:19-cv-06673
2:19-cv-06677
2:19-cv-06690
2:19-cv-06693
2:19-cv-06696
2:19-cv-06697
2:19-cv-06699
2:19-cv-06706
2:19-cv-06712
2:19-cv-06713
2:19-cv-06721
2:19-cv-06730
2:19-cv-06748
2:19-cv-06823
2:19-cv-06827
2:19-cv-06828
2:19-cv-06837
2:19-cv-06845
2:19-cv-06862
2:19-cv-06883

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 39 of 43 PageID: 307
Exhibit A
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043

Adrienne Newton
John Nicastro
Eddie Nicholson
Joyce Niemi
Luis Nieves
Barbara Noble
Norma Wright
Norman Reynolds
Luis Rodriguez-Charriez
Walter R. Roger
James Potter
Misty C. Powell
Leon Rhodes and Veronica Rhodes
Carolyn Powers
Francis Presto
Deborah A. Richard
Daniel Paul
Louise C. Peaco
Pamela M. Pruitt
Kathy Ridgeway
Esteban Rojo
Anthony Riley
Ricky L. Wilson
Annette H. Ringley
Linda Roach
Leona Quinn
Frank Quinones
Sharon Raabe
Judith Robertson
Martina Ramirez
James Randolph
Debbie M. Rankin
April Rondeau
Ruth Roozing-Grimsrud
Manuel G. Rodriguez
David B. Zarosky
Brandi Peebles
David Pennypacker, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia
Pennypacker, Deceased
Eric D. Perkins
Michael Scadden
Claudia Ortega, as the Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Josefina
Silva, deceased
William Schiffert
Sydney B. Silver
Darlet A. Simile
Bruce E. Simmons

2:19-cv-06885
2:19-cv-06889
2:19-cv-06897
2:19-cv-06899
2:19-cv-06900
2:19-cv-06911
2:19-cv-06918
2:19-cv-06938
2:19-cv-06947
2:19-cv-06950
2:19-cv-06962
2:19-cv-06966
2:19-cv-06967
2:19-cv-06974
2:19-cv-06981
2:19-cv-06989
2:19-cv-07003
2:19-cv-07010
2:19-cv-07022
2:19-cv-07034
2:19-cv-07039
2:19-cv-07045
2:19-cv-07047
2:19-cv-07049
2:19-cv-07057
2:19-cv-07059
2:19-cv-07065
2:19-cv-07069
2:19-cv-07082
2:19-cv-07083
2:19-cv-07104
2:19-cv-07111
2:19-cv-07119
2:19-cv-07126
2:19-cv-07137
2:19-cv-07139
2:19-cv-07166
2:19-cv-07175
2:19-cv-07188
2:19-CV-07191
2:19-cv-07201
2:19-cv-07203
2:19-cv-07206
2:19-cv-07208
2:19-cv-07210

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 40 of 43 PageID: 308
Exhibit A
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089

Mary M. Simmons
Ronald A. Simmons
Sheryl D. Simpson
Theresa Sipler
Ben Schwartz
Robert Smith
Rita Scott, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Melvern Scott,
deceased
Nancy Rouseau
Lisa C. Rowlette
Amanda Scrimpsher
Roger Zickefoose
Scott E. Shaner
Raymond L. Shaner
Anita L. Shank
Carla A. Smith
Debra Sheffey
Gloria Sheppard
Patricia A. Smith
Andrew Sherrod
Sharon Smith
Valorie Sherrod
Annette H. Shook
Ysleta Smith
Arlene Sidenstick
David A. Soliz
Gilbert J. Sosa
Christina Spaulding
Heidi McGee
Troy McKelvy
Shanda M. Meacacke
Alan R. Sussman
Wendy Swartz
Brenda Swift
Dawn Takacs
Kermit E. Tate
Tony E. Taylor
Ronald Perrin
Barbara A. Rauenzahn
Janet Reardon
Elspeth A. Teed
Michael B. Tenore
Ruby M. Terrasas
Pamela D. Terry
Miriam Thomas
Willie Thomas
Zoanthony M. Thomas

2:19-cv-07214
2:19-cv-07216
2:19-cv-07218
2:19-cv-07222
2:19-cv-07238
2:19-cv-07247
2:19-cv-07250
2:19-cv-07267
2:19-cv-07272
2:19-cv-07300
2:19-cv-07306
2:19-cv-07348
2:19-cv-07349
2:19-cv-07352
2:19-cv-07358
2:19-cv-07372
2:19-cv-07382
2:19-cv-07383
2:19-cv-07388
2:19-cv-07389
2:19-cv-07390
2:19-cv-07400
2:19-cv-07403
2:19-cv-07425
2:19-cv-07493
2:19-cv-07500
2:19-cv-07509
2:19-cv-07516
2:19-cv-07521
2:19-cv-07543
2:19-cv-07552
2:19-cv-07555
2:19-cv-07558
2:19-cv-07560
2:19-cv-07563
2:19-cv-07569
2:19-cv-07572
2:19-cv-07574
2:19-cv-07580
2:19-cv-07584
2:19-cv-07587
2:19-cv-07589
2:19-cv-07590
2:19-cv-07597
2:19-cv-07600
2:19-cv-07601

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 41 of 43 PageID: 309
Exhibit A
1090 Kim Sposato
1091 Dean St. John
Diane Robinson, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of James
1092
Stacker, Deceased
1093 Daniel M. Russell
1094 Carrie L. Stark
1095 Courtney Stark
1096 Rose Starr
1097 Sally D. Reed
1098 Gail E. Sachs
1099 Sandra Steen
1100 Sheila K. Sain
1101 Yvette Sanders
1102 Vashon Stephens
1103 Sonja F. Anthony
1104 Madge E. Reed
1105 Dea Reed
1106 Linda K. Reed
1107 Shasta Cook
1108 Norma Fuentes
1109 Donna J. Renard
1110 Mark E. Lynch
1111 Tammy Sateriale
1112 Arnoldo Sauceda
1113 Rodney Stewart
1114 Ricky Stewart
1115 Nicholas Savini
1116 Lennie Stowes
1117 Joan V. Streek
Fred Stuhlemmer, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Leah
1118
Stuhlemmer, Deceased
1119 Eric T. Whitfield
1120 Susan Reitz
1121 Nowell E. Renth
1122 Silvia Retana
1123 Kevin Wiggs
1124 Sylvia Thrower
1125 Mona L. Timms
1126 Robert W. Tonini
1127 Jeffrey L. Montgomery
1128 Linda Palafox
1129 Mary N. Vieyra
1130 Mary Vincent
1131 Geraldine Virges
1132 Carmen Vitello
1133 Lois Torres
1134 Randy E. Totenhagen

2:19-cv-07621
2:19-cv-07624
2:19-cv-07627
2:19-cv-07633
2:19-cv-07634
2:19-cv-07636
2:19-cv-07639
2:19-cv-07642
2:19-cv-07653
2:19-cv-07658
2:19-cv-07661
2:19-cv-07673
2:19-cv-07676
2:19-cv-07681
2:19-cv-07701
2:19-cv-07707
2:19-cv-07717
2:19-cv-07725
2:19-cv-07739
2:19-cv-07763
2:19-cv-07771
2:19-cv-07793
2:19-cv-07799
2:19-cv-07800
2:19-cv-07804
2:19-cv-07825
2:19-cv-07851
2:19-cv-07857
2:19-cv-07864
2:19-cv-07871
2:19-cv-07879
2:19-cv-07884
2:19-cv-07886
2:19-cv-07893
2:19-cv-07898
2:19-cv-07901
2:19-cv-07908
2:19-cv-07929
2:19-cv-07955
2:19-cv-07990
2:19-cv-08003
2:19-cv-08004
2:19-cv-08007
2:19-cv-08013
2:19-cv-08017

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 42 of 43 PageID: 310
Exhibit A
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179

Kimberly Wilfong
Michael Waddy
Kimberly A. Willhite
Jeanette R. Wadholm-Williams
Brycelynn Wakkukait
Bonnie S. Walburn
Dee N. Trejo
Donna M. Tritto
Arthur L. Waller
Joseph Walsh
Wanda J. Turnage
Donald Turnbow
Donald W. Vanadore Jr.
Roberta L. Vankuren
Linda I. Ruffin
Jerome G. Washington
Cherry Watson as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Gary E.
Watson, Deceased
Betty Webb
Peggy Wehr
Daniel E. Varner
Maria Welch
Jimmy Welch
Cody Weldon
Cornelius Westbrook
Audrey M. Werner
Kathleen West
Joseph White Sr.
Sandra E. White
Robert Acosta
Eugene Fisher
Mary Bellmore, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Donn Bellmore, Deceased
Katie Ware
Michael Davis
Dennis Thompson
Janet Burau
Rose Campbell
Betty Jessie
William Sayles
Robert Brantley
Brenda Kellam
Kathleen Anderson
Sandra Loesche
Alex Montiel
Dolores Payne
Glenda Kelsey

2:19-cv-08028
2:19-cv-08035
2:19-cv-08043
2:19-cv-08045
2:19-cv-08095
2:19-cv-08097
2:19-cv-08141
2:19-cv-08150
2:19-cv-08151
2:19-cv-08155
2:19-cv-08200
2:19-cv-08202
2:19-cv-08253
2:19-cv-08259
2:19-cv-08279
2:19-cv-08291
2:19-cv-08323
2:19-cv-08430
2:19-cv-08436
2:19-cv-08449
2:19-cv-08503
2:19-cv-08505
2:19-cv-08506
2:19-cv-08509
2:19-cv-08547
2:19-cv-08562
2:19-cv-08573
2:19-cv-08601
2:19-cv-08709
2:19-cv-08838
2:19-cv-10047
2:19-cv-10141
2:19-cv-11777
2:19-cv-12040
2:19-cv-12611
2:19-cv-12613
2:19-cv-12618
2:19-cv-12628
2:19-cv-20086
2:20-cv-07294
2:20-cv-07343
2:20-cv-07344
2:20-cv-07345
2:20-cv-07348
2:20-cv-20741

Case 2:18-cv-06540-CCC-LDW Document 15 Filed 05/01/23 Page 43 of 43 PageID: 311
Exhibit A
1180 Sheila Kindoll
1181 Linda K Shierling

2:20-cv-20742
2:20-cv-20743