HOWELL v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al

Filing 16

MDL OPINION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to CMO No. 60. [PFIZER, INC. terminated]. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/24/2023. (sms2)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 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 Procedure 2 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.

1

Sometimes identified as Pfiser, Inc.
All references to Rules herein are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
At the request of the parties, the deadline for plaintiffs to file responses to CMO No. 60 was
extended to March 31, 2022, and then June 30, 2022. See CMO No. 67, at § I.D, ECF No. 747;
CMO No. 70, at ¶ B, ECF No. 769. The deadline for Pfizer to oppose each plaintiff’s response was
extended to May 15, 2022, then 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.
2

1

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,

4

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

or show cause why Pfizer should not be dismissed. CMO No. 60 did not provide these 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 Pfizer should not be dismissed.”
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 ninetyday 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

3

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

4

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

5

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,
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
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

6

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

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

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

8

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

6

Pfizer also argues that because Plaintiffs did not address their reasons for untimely service (and
instead relied chiefly on arguments concerning waiver), Plaintiffs’ reply to CMO 60 failed to
comply with a court order, requiring dismissal of their cases on that independent basis. . See, e.g.,
No. 2:18-cv-04095, ECF No. 19 at 6. Pfizer cites 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

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

cases. Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions and orders Pfizer to be
dismissed without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A. 7
24 day of April, 2023;
Accordingly, IT IS on this ______
ORDERED that Pfizer shall be DISMISSED without prejudice from the cases identified
in Exhibit A hereto.
SO ORDERED.

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

7

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.

14

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

Nancy Hignite
James U. Hodges
Ruthe A. Hensley
Antonio D. Davis
Misty Ashley
David Frost
Lester Hall and Ruth E. Hall
Lynda D. McKibben
Leonore L. Sosa
Garrett Sons
Todd K. Andrade
Norman Kydd
Della I. Gregg
Denver Kennett
John Ortiz
Mike Moffat
Laurie T. Lum
Betty L. Sanner
William Ketelsen
Tia Hartmann
Grady Harris
Daniel Sharp
Theresa Johnson
Mary A. Williams
Rayshell Robinson
Deborah Allen
Sharon Acevedo
Patricia Bean
Michael Barrett
Judy K. Aiken
Dale Bryan
Tonya Bates-Wilson
Donna J. Cushenberry
Stella Benefiel
Roosevelt Dunning
Gloria Eddy
Edgardo Biliran
Emma Balthazar
Antionette Borden

Case No.
2:18-cv-02649
2:18-cv-02952
2:18-cv-03235
2:18-cv-03775
2:18-cv-03851
2:18-cv-03861
2:18-cv-03881
2:18-cv-03885
2:18-cv-03886
2:18-cv-03894
2:18-cv-04040
2:18-cv-04048
2:18-cv-04054
2:18-cv-04078
2:18-cv-04095
2:18-cv-04139
2:18-cv-04159
2:18-cv-04169
2:18-cv-04176
2:18-cv-04180
2:18-cv-04181
2:18-cv-04184
2:18-cv-04206
2:18-cv-04208
2:18-cv-04215
2:18-cv-04281
2:18-cv-04282
2:18-cv-04283
2:18-cv-04290
2:18-cv-04291
2:18-cv-04293
2:18-cv-04296
2:18-cv-04298
2:18-cv-04304
2:18-cv-04305
2:18-cv-04308
2:18-cv-04309
2:18-cv-04312
2:18-cv-04315

40 Shelley Hager, as Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Hager, Deceased

2:18-cv-04317

41
42
43
44
45

2:18-cv-04318
2:18-cv-04319
2:18-cv-04326
2:18-cv-04330
2:18-cv-04332

Anthony Elliott
Kevin Casey
George Curry
Deloris Daniel
Ricky Fisher

Exhibit A
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
89
90

David D. Hopkins
Dennis Ledford and Tracey Ledford
Rozell Collins
Cassandra Howard
Patricia Cooper
Leray Littell
Tony Long
Sandra Davis
Robert Parham, Jr.
Climmie Gibbons
Teresa Harlen, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack R. Harlen,
Deceased
Vivian Parker
Heather P. Lott
Virginia Rackins
Otis D. Roberts
Robert Ludlam, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Aubie Ludlam,
Deceased
Jessie Martin
Mary Hankamer
Brenda R. Dale
Kelly Smith
Mary Haynes
Betty Head
Jerome Browning
Clarence Mumma
Beverly Bryant
Jose Fronda
Rolanda Allmon
Constance Guardado
Steve Slade
Donell Andrews
Joyce Watson
Jeanette Williams
Avis Hiestand
Roger Mata
Linda Bishop
Darlene Mason
Laura Raffa
Scott Allen
Max Holbrook and Joyce Holbrook
Mildred Brock
Unni Shelton
Darwin Watson
Terry Debruyn
John M. Sierra
Woodie G. Murphy

2:18-cv-04350
2:18-cv-04477
2:18-cv-04482
2:18-cv-04484
2:18-cv-04491
2:18-cv-04492
2:18-cv-04495
2:18-cv-04496
2:18-cv-04497
2:18-cv-04499
2:18-cv-04500
2:18-cv-04501
2:18-cv-04502
2:18-cv-04504
2:18-cv-04507
2:18-cv-04511
2:18-cv-04519
2:18-cv-04520
2:18-cv-04526
2:18-cv-04529
2:18-cv-04535
2:18-cv-04538
2:18-cv-04827
2:18-cv-04828
2:18-cv-04829
2:18-cv-04830
2:18-cv-04831
2:18-cv-04833
2:18-cv-04843
2:18-cv-04852
2:18-cv-04864
2:18-cv-04868
2:18-cv-04871
2:18-cv-04872
2:18-cv-04873
2:18-cv-04874
2:18-cv-04877
2:18-cv-04882
2:18-cv-04888
2:18-cv-04904
2:18-cv-04915
2:18-cv-04918
2:18-cv-04921
2:18-cv-04923
2:18-cv-04933

Exhibit A
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

Oscar M. Chavez
Priscilla Smeets
Paula Ford
Joseph Spurgeon and Sambra Spurgeon
Roger Phillips
Billie Martin Stinson
Wanda Thomas
Lorenzo Valenzuela
Brenda Jo Lemley
Helen Waddle
Rodrick Whitaker
Dawn Miller
Robert Dryden
Charla Mogg
Maudell Palmer
Fred L. Johns
Danielle Newman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack F.
Newman, Deceased
Peggy S. Conley
Dwight W. Graley, Sr.
Scott Hannigan
Birdie D. Jackson
Rebecca M Oates
David Pierce
Teresa Byers
Donald Gibson
Michael Clarke and Maribeth Clarke
Sandra Garrett
Nancy L. Harsh
Bryan G. Swanson
Melvin Stubbs
Jennifer Wolfe
Sharon Powers
Arthur D. Warshawsky
Martha Burns
Kyle Rose
Jeffrey Jones
Burma G. Sizemore
Carmen Stevens
Shirley Teel, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Ezra C. Teel,
Deceased
James Wellman
Dara Dougherty
Sheryl Gerald
Samantha Riddle
Gwenda Steele

2:18-cv-04936
2:18-cv-04938
2:18-cv-04943
2:18-cv-04948
2:18-cv-05034
2:18-cv-05038
2:18-cv-05040
2:18-cv-05055
2:18-cv-05060
2:18-cv-05061
2:18-cv-05068
2:18-cv-05069
2:18-cv-05081
2:18-cv-05084
2:18-cv-05306
2:18-cv-05314
2:18-cv-05324
2:18-cv-05343
2:18-cv-05345
2:18-cv-05351
2:18-cv-05353
2:18-cv-05360
2:18-cv-05361
2:18-cv-05431
2:18-cv-05438
2:18-cv-05448
2:18-cv-05463
2:18-cv-05466
2:18-cv-05476
2:18-cv-05479
2:18-cv-05485
2:18-cv-05488
2:18-cv-05490
2:18-cv-05495
2:18-cv-05500
2:18-cv-05504
2:18-cv-05511
2:18-cv-05516
2:18-cv-05521
2:18-cv-05525
2:18-cv-05954
2:18-cv-05959
2:18-cv-05971
2:18-cv-05975

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

Barbara Gibson, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Alta Gibson,
Deceased
George Hawkins
Willie Anderson
Mary Hollander
Lance Faulkner
Jeffrey Reed
Sharon Reid
Bartholomew Gaiera and Karen Gaiera
Kathlene Brown
Joni Barrows
Rebecca Harrington
Patricia Hasty
Richard Jackson and Judy Fontenot
Bonnie L. Mize
Jackie Knight
Tunya Lowe
Patina Johnson
Cristy Blankenship
Johnny Daniels
Emilee Palmer and Michael D. Palmer
Travis Charlton, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia
Halbert, Deceased
Nina Fernandez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Sanra Nobil,
Deceased
Elizabeth Prater
Jerry Blosser, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Wanda Blosser, Deceased
Norma Stillwagoner
Karen Keenan, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate
of Larry Keenan, Deceased
Gina Zerby, Individully and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Michael Zerby, Deceased
Michelle Wilson
Emilly Knotts, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cheryl Stefenel,
Deceased
Jacquelyn Booker
Dianne Caldwell
Leona Collins, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Deniese Collins, Deceased
Patrick Connors
Allen Pyne
Gladys Maddox
Johnnie Oliver
Betty Bassett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Robert Avera, Deceased

2:18-cv-05976
2:18-cv-05980
2:18-cv-06130
2:18-cv-06148
2:18-cv-06154
2:18-cv-06159
2:18-cv-06164
2:18-cv-06166
2:18-cv-06171
2:18-cv-06178
2:18-cv-06196
2:18-cv-06202
2:18-cv-06214
2:18-cv-06232
2:18-cv-06233
2:18-cv-06256
2:18-cv-06274
2:18-cv-06436
2:18-cv-06440
2:18-cv-06449
2:18-cv-06476
2:18-cv-06497
2:18-cv-06506
2:18-cv-06515
2:18-cv-06520
2:18-cv-06522
2:18-cv-06532
2:18-cv-06540
2:18-cv-06552
2:18-cv-06834
2:18-cv-06846
2:18-cv-06869
2:18-cv-06876
2:18-cv-06938
2:18-cv-06939
2:18-cv-06947
2:18-cv-06949

Exhibit A
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
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

Charles Jones, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Victoria Jones,
deceased
Danny Parker
Patricia Parker
Charles Howard
Teresa Hill-Ibrahim
Judy Bradshaw, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Jimmy Bradshaw, Deceased
Victor Sackett
Virginia Boyd
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
Ronal Turner, Deceased
Jeanette Mouton
Erick Barnes
Tammy Perry
Wendy Brazill
Brenda Fletcher
Nancy Esque
Diane McGee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kevin
McGee, Deceased
George Gale
Fabian Garcia, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Yolanda Montalvo, Deceased
Joann Flowers, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Sophia Perkins, Deceased
Thomas Russo
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
Birdie Woods
Betty Apellido
Pauline Corn
Gloria Dietrich
Walker Howell
Stephanie Ralston-Bailey
Laura Richie
Regina Salisbury
Mary Skeens
Marlene Hatfield
Sharon Nali

2:18-cv-06952
2:18-cv-06964
2:18-cv-06975
2:18-cv-06986
2:18-cv-07005
2:18-cv-07049
2:18-cv-07059
2:18-cv-07090
2:18-cv-07130
2:18-cv-07137
2:18-cv-07148
2:18-cv-07153
2:18-cv-07178
2:18-cv-07187
2:18-cv-07194
2:18-cv-07195
2:18-cv-07203
2:18-cv-07208
2:18-cv-07239
2:18-cv-07267
2:18-cv-07276
2:18-cv-07320
2:18-cv-07340
2:18-cv-07352
2:18-cv-07365
2:18-cv-07438
2:18-cv-07557
2:18-cv-07584
2:18-cv-07592
2:18-cv-07616
2:18-cv-07617
2:18-cv-07622
2:18-cv-07632
2:18-cv-07637
2:18-cv-07639
2:18-cv-07667

Exhibit A
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217

William Solis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Aura
Burgos, Deceased
Ronald Klinenberg
Luis Nesta
Lorraine Turco
Hazel Phillips
Tracie Powers
Mary Rivali, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Robert
Rivali, Deceased
Marilyn Sullivan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Evelyn Sullivan, Deceased
Bernadine Hardie
Maribel Villanueva, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Alexander Rivera-Baez, Deceased

2:18-cv-07688
2:18-cv-07706
2:18-cv-07708
2:18-cv-07713
2:18-cv-07748
2:18-cv-07756
2:18-cv-07760
2:18-cv-07781
2:18-cv-07795
2:18-cv-07799

218 Karen Vassar, Representative of the Estate of Bobby Vassar, Deceased

2:18-cv-08722

219
220
221
222

2:19-cv-01061
2:19-cv-01813
2:19-cv-01853
2:19-cv-01859

223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246

Odilia Perez
Dennis Quintin
Martha Griffith
William Hall
Brenda Willis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Seress Harris, Deceased
Gloria Haywood
Ruth Hurd
Eric Hurwitz
Patricia Joppien
Paul Jozwiak
George Bonis
Raymond Bryant
John Bottoms
Cindy Campbell
Colleen Cantwell
Gladys Carpenter
Brandon Cole
Robert Crenshaw
Wanda Crager
Jason Daniels
Luis Manuel Delgado, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate
of Luis C. Delgado, Deceased
Linda McMillen
Odessa Mitchell
Patricia Mitchell
Charles Newsom
Orestes Diaz
Helmut Otto
Darryl Oglesby, as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Sandra
Oglesby, Deceased

2:19-cv-01873
2:19-cv-01881
2:19-cv-01887
2:19-cv-01889
2:19-cv-01897
2:19-cv-01902
2:19-cv-01931
2:19-cv-01939
2:19-cv-01945
2:19-cv-01948
2:19-cv-01965
2:19-cv-01981
2:19-cv-02004
2:19-cv-02011
2:19-cv-02012
2:19-cv-02015
2:19-cv-02030
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-02066

Exhibit A
247 Charlotte Edgar
Carey Bowie, Individually and as the Represenetative of the Estate of
248
Henry Bowie, Deceased
Maria Edwards, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
249
Francisca Camacho, Deceased
250 Warren Ketchmore
Juan Cantu, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
251
Margarita Cantu, Deceased
252 Juanita Landers
253 Karen Gaines
Brenda McCurdy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
254
Rickey McCurdy, Deceased
255 Bridgette Long
Nettie Overton, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
256
Charlie Overton, Deceased
257 Glenda Long
258 Melissa Olson
Raymond Wilson, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
259
Randy Orr, Deceased
260 Sandra Pannell
261 Priscille Parent
262 Lucretia Peavy
263 Mabel Perry
264 Glenna Pool
265 Debra Primrose
Margaret Pryor, As the Representative of the Estate of Keith Pryor,
266
Deceased
267 Joyce Sheffield
268 Terry Sheffield
269 Carl Warner
270 Lionel Smith
271 Sherrie Abrahamson
272 Linda Stockwell
273 Diane Watkins
274 James Williams
275 Charles Wiley
Belinda Beck, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Willie
276
Taylor, Deceaed
277 Nathan Tyler
Vivian Wittner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
278
Myra Wittner, Deceased
279 Darwin Valentine
Susan Lynn Wright, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
280
Tabitha Wright, Deceased
281 Donna Wooten
Sharon Grady, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Herbert Grady,
282
Deceased

2:19-cv-02074
2:19-cv-02086
2:19-cv-02092
2:19-cv-02102
2:19-cv-02104
2:19-cv-02127
2:19-cv-02136
2:19-cv-02143
2:19-cv-02159
2:19-cv-02174
2:19-cv-02175
2:19-cv-02204
2:19-cv-02239
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-02456
2:19-cv-02464
2:19-cv-02469
2:19-cv-02475
2:19-cv-02484
2:19-cv-02487
2:19-cv-02493
2:19-cv-02519
2:19-cv-02523
2:19-cv-02531
2:19-cv-02547
2:19-cv-02577
2:19-cv-02586
2:19-cv-02669

Exhibit A
283 Judy K. Freed
284 Connie Black
285 Laurie J Dey
Esmeralda Olvera, As proposed Representative of the Estate of Santos
286
Olvera, deceased
287 Ernest J Palmer
Cheryl Adams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Belle Collins,
288
Deceased
289 Angela Clark
290 George Reyes
291 Joe A. Gottwald
292 Matt Spasoff
293 Nancy Fennell
294 Merle Kirkland
295 Sheila Holmes
296 Brenda Y. Ridyolph
297 Cynthia Tucker
298 Rosetta T. Cunningham
Michelle Denofa, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Frank
299
Denofa, Deceased
300 Paul E. Dilocker
301 Ruth Edwards
302 Phillip Cottle
303 Jannie Gichia
304 Diana Greathouse
Lena Turknett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Gaines,
305
Deceased
306 Suzanne Coleman-Cunningham
Betty Hunter, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
307
Thomas Hunter, Deceased
308 Noreen Davis-Xanthis
309 Juanita Mekwuye
310 Carla A. Dimatteo
311 Barbara Zajack
312 Jennifer Collins
313 Melissa Harris
314 Tracy Henderson
315 Linwood Flemister
316 James W. Franklin, Sr.
317 Keisha Kimbrough
318 Cynthia Lawhorn
319 Lynell Johnson
320 Michael Anthony Jones
321 Cara Kreider
322 Stephen C. McNeill
Michael DePhillipo, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
323
Felice DePhillipo, Deceased

2:19-cv-02687
2:19-cv-02703
2:19-cv-02873
2:19-CV-02877
2:19-cv-02882
2:19-cv-02996
2:19-cv-03070
2:19-cv-03081
2:19-cv-03115
2:19-cv-03117
2:19-cv-03132
2:19-cv-03272
2:19-cv-03327
2:19-cv-03419
2:19-cv-03489
2:19-cv-03553
2:19-cv-03571
2:19-cv-03589
2:19-cv-03595
2:19-cv-03618
2:19-cv-03625
2:19-cv-03633
2:19-cv-03636
2:19-cv-03638
2:19-cv-03645
2:19-cv-03646
2:19-cv-03652
2:19-cv-03658
2:19-cv-03663
2:19-cv-03679
2:19-cv-03684
2:19-cv-03685
2:19-cv-03686
2:19-cv-03711
2:19-cv-03723
2:19-cv-03739
2:19-cv-03784
2:19-cv-03806
2:19-cv-03817
2:19-cv-03823
2:19-cv-03858

Exhibit A
324 Tammy R. Phipps
Melissa Konarski, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
325
Pamela Zaccardi, Deceased
326 Kevin M. Takacs
327 Anna B. Franks
328 Brandon R. Ward
329 Raymond A. Watson
330 Darren Williams
331 Belinda L. Laird
332 Anita Loudy
333 Sandra Detherage
334 Carol Rosenblum
335 Linda Barnett
336 Keith Ellery
337 Kerry Bland
338 Denise Garrette
339 Josette Schaffer
John Danso, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Vickie
340
Danso, Deceased
341 Lawrence Lucerne
342 Sandra Mason
343 Beverly McCaleb
344 Karen E. Rawlings
Veda McDonald-Rhodes, Individually and as the Representative of the
345
Estate of Andre McDonald, Deceased
346 Joanne Smith
347 Diane Wood
348 Terry L. Tharp
349 Donald Torgerson
350 Mary Burchett
351 Michael Bowen
352 Curtis Banks, Jr.
353 Catherine Antwine
354 Jackie L. Brown
355 Joseph A. Archer
356 Margie T. Bannister
357 Leta Bannon
358 Janice Weibley, on behalf of Elizabeth L. Boyd
359 Richard Bailey
360 Debra Bramblett
361 Brent Bregan
362 Renee E. Adkins
363 Damisha L. Bishop
364 Joe Alfieri
365 Shirley Bass
366 Alice Baxter

2:19-cv-03863
2:19-cv-03869
2:19-cv-03921
2:19-cv-03984
2:19-cv-03987
2:19-cv-04002
2:19-cv-04012
2:19-cv-04031
2:19-cv-04113
2:19-cv-04133
2:19-cv-04146
2:19-cv-04152
2:19-cv-04166
2:19-cv-04178
2:19-cv-04188
2:19-cv-04192
2:19-cv-04204
2:19-cv-04209
2:19-cv-04218
2:19-cv-04224
2:19-cv-04226
2:19-cv-04228
2:19-cv-04234
2:19-cv-04242
2:19-cv-04250
2:19-cv-04254
2:19-cv-04470
2:19-cv-04503
2:19-cv-04514
2:19-cv-04516
2:19-cv-04518
2:19-cv-04519
2:19-cv-04528
2:19-cv-04535
2:19-cv-04537
2:19-cv-04559
2:19-cv-04561
2:19-cv-04574
2:19-cv-04623
2:19-cv-04684
2:19-cv-04690
2:19-cv-04703
2:19-cv-04722

Exhibit A
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
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412

Anna Gonzalez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Beatrice Ceja,
Deceased
Twila M. Dillon
Dora Chatman
David A. Ealy
Albert G. Collins
Nelda Dugas
James Drain
Tina Dasher
Augusta L. Colson
John Elliott
David Andrews
Adela Anguiano
Troy Ersch
Ronald R. Francis
Angela Clinton
Robin Fizhugh
Mary Duncan
Charlotte Edwards
Matilda Gagliardi
Barbara S. Foutty
Angela K. Henry
Bobby G Jones
Darlene Huettenberger
Gary D. Johnson
Helen Humphrey
Ronnie W. Johnson
Donna Hines
Denice M Justice
Connie Ivory
Constance Gary
Barton S. Hickey
Marne Gonzales
Pamela Kazak
Phyllis J. Kinsey
Steven Graham
June S. Grumbein
Alcadio Guajardo, III
Theresa R. Grove
Darren Gines
Connie Gamez
Paul Glasper
Doris Harder
Rashidah Id-Deen
Bonnie Holtgrew
Jeffrey A Heaps
Terica Lemon

2:19-cv-04750
2:19-cv-04790
2:19-cv-04826
2:19-cv-04837
2:19-cv-04853
2:19-cv-04861
2:19-cv-04863
2:19-cv-04882
2:19-cv-04909
2:19-cv-04913
2:19-cv-04914
2:19-cv-04927
2:19-cv-04932
2:19-cv-04975
2:19-cv-04981
2:19-cv-05006
2:19-cv-05072
2:19-cv-05097
2:19-cv-05119
2:19-cv-05132
2:19-cv-05185
2:19-cv-05196
2:19-cv-05197
2:19-cv-05199
2:19-cv-05243
2:19-cv-05247
2:19-cv-05275
2:19-cv-05307
2:19-cv-05324
2:19-cv-05335
2:19-cv-05353
2:19-cv-05355
2:19-cv-05369
2:19-cv-05376
2:19-cv-05547
2:19-cv-05558
2:19-cv-05583
2:19-cv-05606
2:19-cv-05608
2:19-cv-05652
2:19-cv-05699
2:19-cv-05791
2:19-cv-05805
2:19-cv-05814
2:19-cv-05853
2:19-cv-06014

Exhibit A
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
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

Gail H. Mills
Lisa Mitchell
Berchia M. Mitchell
Jason R. Mitchell
Anna Hoppes
Carson E. Wingo
Joe N. Little
Betty J. Withrow
Annette London
Penny E Wolfe
Melissa Lonsdale
Richard A. Lovelace
Desiree Lovins
Betty Lowther
Joseph W. Lucas
Martin Masar Jr.
James Mason
Lynda Mercer
Lena Woolfolk
Arlene Miller
Thelma McClellen
Brenda McConnachie
Grachell L. Manuel
Uri Moscovici
Marilyn Young
Terry Hays-Booker
Missouri McCann
Marybelle J. Nohejl and Donald Nohejl
Colton Norwood
Norma J. Ochoa
Herschel Overby
Sherrie Owerko
Deborah L. Patterson
Shirley Murray
David Peterson, Sr.
Leonard Nesbitt
Alvin Williamson
David O. Pinto
Andrew E. Polly
Emily Nichols
Joyce Niemi
Norma Wright
Misty C. Powell
Leon Rhodes and Veronica Rhodes
Linda Roach
Sharon Raabe
Martha Bruton

2:19-cv-06072
2:19-cv-06080
2:19-cv-06106
2:19-cv-06110
2:19-cv-06157
2:19-cv-06224
2:19-cv-06225
2:19-cv-06226
2:19-cv-06231
2:19-cv-06237
2:19-cv-06246
2:19-cv-06320
2:19-cv-06323
2:19-cv-06374
2:19-cv-06376
2:19-cv-06432
2:19-cv-06444
2:19-cv-06456
2:19-cv-06457
2:19-cv-06496
2:19-cv-06520
2:19-cv-06522
2:19-cv-06537
2:19-cv-06541
2:19-cv-06599
2:19-cv-06613
2:19-cv-06614
2:19-cv-06648
2:19-cv-06653
2:19-cv-06657
2:19-cv-06681
2:19-cv-06685
2:19-cv-06706
2:19-cv-06713
2:19-cv-06827
2:19-cv-06828
2:19-cv-06848
2:19-cv-06874
2:19-cv-06890
2:19-cv-06894
2:19-cv-06899
2:19-cv-06918
2:19-cv-06966
2:19-cv-06967
2:19-cv-07057
2:19-cv-07069
2:19-cv-07076

Exhibit A
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
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

Brian Rose
Brandi Peebles
William Schiffert
Darlet A. Simile
Ben Schwartz
Robert Smith
Rita Scott, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Melvern Scott,
Deceased
Roberta Ruddy
Scott E. Shaner
Amos Smith
Anita L. Shank
Sharon Smith
Valorie Sherrod
Annette H. Shook
Ysleta Smith
Arlene Sidenstick
Heidi McGee
Laronda M. McMurray
Shanda M. Meacacke
Brenda Swift
Dawn Takacs
Ruby M. Terrasas
Pamela D. Terry
Ruth Thompson
Cheryl Russell
Courtney Stark
Sally D. Reed
Sandra Steen
Sonja F. Anthony
Nadine Reese
Tammy Sateriale
Arnoldo Sauceda
Rodney Stewart
Nicholas Savini
Joan v. Streek
Emma L. White
Susan Reitz
Kevin Wiggs
Robert W. Tonini
Carmen Vitello
Brenda J. Wadman
Jami Butler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of David
Ayers, Deceased
Bonnie S. Walburn
Dianne C. Walker
Darlene Watson

2:19-cv-07133
2:19-cv-07166
2:19-cv-07203
2:19-cv-07208
2:19-cv-07238
2:19-cv-07247
2:19-cv-07250
2:19-cv-07297
2:19-cv-07348
2:19-cv-07350
2:19-cv-07352
2:19-cv-07389
2:19-cv-07390
2:19-cv-07400
2:19-cv-07403
2:19-cv-07425
2:19-cv-07516
2:19-cv-07540
2:19-cv-07543
2:19-cv-07558
2:19-cv-07560
2:19-cv-07589
2:19-cv-07590
2:19-cv-07605
2:19-cv-07635
2:19-cv-07636
2:19-cv-07642
2:19-cv-07658
2:19-cv-07681
2:19-cv-07732
2:19-cv-07793
2:19-cv-07799
2:19-cv-07800
2:19-cv-07825
2:19-cv-07857
2:19-cv-07869
2:19-cv-07879
2:19-cv-07893
2:19-cv-07908
2:19-cv-08007
2:19-cv-08050
2:19-cv-08067
2:19-cv-08097
2:19-cv-08137
2:19-cv-08319

Exhibit A
505
506
507
508
509
510
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

Cherry Watson
Corderro Watts
Wayne Price
Daniel E. Varner
Audrey M. Werner
Joseph White Sr.
Robert Acosta
Wilma Bibbs
Shirley Brantley
Esther Garza, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Jorge
Garza, Deceased
James Goff
Regla Hernandez
Elizabeth Hoover, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Katharina Hoover, Deceased
Barbara Jensen
Lorenzo Limon
Andrew Mae Martin
Delaine Moore
Allawana Parsons, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Smith Parsons, Deceased
Lydia Robinson
Felicita Santos
Margaret Chappel, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Adrian Smith, Deceased
Ernestine Thompson
Rosa Vega
Katie Ware
Barbara Wargo
Billy Wiginton
Scott Wright
Brenda Wyatt
Sheila Cuffee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Corinne Blackwell, Deceased
Terri Bullock Dortmundt
Elisa Puentes, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Lucy
Hernandez, Deceased
Kimberly Ann Tomajko
Billie Whitehead, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
Artis Whitehead, Deceased
Judy Edwards
Kevin Hickles, Sr.
George D. Pulford
Roxanne Robertson
Julia K. Strickland
Sharon L. Thorne
Dian F. Umbaugh

2:19-cv-08323
2:19-cv-08325
2:19-cv-08421
2:19-cv-08449
2:19-cv-08547
2:19-cv-08573
2:19-cv-08709
2:19-cv-10048
2:19-cv-10050
2:19-cv-10059
2:19-cv-10060
2:19-cv-10064
2:19-cv-10069
2:19-cv-10072
2:19-cv-10079
2:19-cv-10083
2:19-cv-10087
2:19-cv-10088
2:19-cv-10092
2:19-cv-10094
2:19-cv-10102
2:19-cv-10115
2:19-cv-10129
2:19-cv-10141
2:19-cv-10142
2:19-cv-10143
2:19-cv-10145
2:19-cv-10146
2:19-cv-10147
2:19-cv-10715
2:19-cv-11000
2:19-cv-11010
2:19-cv-11013
2:19-cv-11320
2:19-cv-11329
2:19-cv-11375
2:19-cv-11575
2:19-cv-11582
2:19-cv-11585
2:19-cv-11590

Exhibit A
545 Josephine Cumbo
Terri McCrea, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Franklin D.
546
McCrea, Sr.
547 Nina Rosemond
548 Temika Smith
549 Lucy M. Spinner
550 Doris Bowens
551 Raymond Brisson
552 Earnest Thomas
553 Gregory Lomax
554 Arthuretta Watford
555 Thomas Bradd
Davida Linn-Cammarano, Individually and as the Representative of the
556
Estate of Frank Cammarano, Deceased
Marilyn Padgett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
557
Novalynn Collins, Deceased
558 Paul Cyrus
559 Joshua Cole
560 Karen King
Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
561
Irene Brown, Deceased
Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
562
Lewis Brown, Sr., Deceased
563 Jeffrey Taylor
564 Eddie Felder
Karen Wells, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
565
Michael Wells, Deceased
566 Larry Moore
567 Paul Greer
568 Mark Marcello
569 Marilyn Pritchard
570 Carol Presley
571 Danny Garabedian
572 Robert McCray
573 Jack Schonenberger
Victor Rodriguez, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of
574
Susan Rodriguez, Deceased
575 Stephen Marchut
576 Richard Elstun
577 Karen Arndt
578 Shirley Howard
579 Robin Noblin
580 James Cadieux
581 Brandy Ramirez
582 Mary Medeiros
583 Lynetta J. Hollingworth

2:19-cv-11776
2:19-cv-11857
2:19-cv-11862
2:19-cv-11866
2:19-cv-11888
2:19-cv-13354
2:19-cv-13490
2:19-cv-13491
2:19-cv-13677
2:19-cv-13678
2:19-cv-14061
2:19-cv-14064
2:19-cv-14065
2:19-cv-14066
2:19-cv-14513
2:19-cv-14732
2:19-cv-15341
2:19-cv-15342
2:19-cv-15345
2:19-cv-15445
2:19-cv-15570
2:19-cv-15571
2:19-cv-15777
2:19-cv-15881
2:19-cv-16196
2:19-cv-16903
2:19-cv-16905
2:19-cv-17096
2:19-cv-17541
2:19-cv-17658
2:19-cv-17991
2:19-cv-18108
2:19-cv-18304
2:19-cv-19780
2:19-cv-19781
2:19-cv-21720
2:19-cv-21958
2:19-cv-21962
2:19-cv-22041

Exhibit A
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591

Alonia Williams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of I.G.
Thompson, Sr., Deceased
Weldon Paul Steadman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of
Phyllis Steadman, Deceased
Jonathan E Beckham
Kimberly J Burrows
Kenneth B. Cousette
Edward L. Thomas
Stephen Deloney
Kathreen Hensley

2:19-cv-22153
2:19-cv-22221
2:20-cv-00979
2:20-cv-00984
2:20-cv-00986
2:20-cv-01015
2:20-cv-01028
2:20-cv-01523

592 Brenda Williams, Individually and as PR of the Estate of Alvin Williams

2:20-cv-01844

593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606

2:20-cv-02070
2:20-cv-03162
2:20-cv-03422
2:20-cv-04531
2:20-cv-04539
2:20-cv-04636
2:20-cv-04644
2:20-cv-04667
2:20-cv-04740
2:20-cv-04760
2:20-cv-04792
2:20-cv-04811
2:20-cv-04829
2:20-cv-04841

607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625

Sterling Binns
Martha Jones
Ernest Nelson Jr.
Pasquale A Palange
Elena Patrizio
Dorothy R Lewis
Barbara Minchew
Rebecca Ann Gordon
Janice C. Rodgers
Gary Friend
Charles F Duke
Linda B Ross
Cheryl K Strouse
Glenda Weeks
Sherry White, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Raymond
White, Deceased
Jacqueline Williams
Mary Zangara
William Clinton
Robert Shawn Trybala
Jane Cedar
Alma J. Williams
Jennefer Prepelica
John E. Pumphrey, Jr.
Sue Brewer
Joan C. Harper
Ella Norman
Susan M. Pierce
Hyram Archdale, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Kathleen K.
Price, Deceased
Christopher Ritenour
Laura J Sutphin
Quintina N. Wright
James Ziegler
Marie Stacey

2:20-cv-04844
2:20-cv-04846
2:20-cv-04850
2:20-cv-04884
2:20-cv-04923
2:20-cv-04940
2:20-cv-04956
2:20-cv-04957
2:20-cv-04962
2:20-cv-05029
2:20-cv-05040
2:20-cv-05052
2:20-cv-05066
2:20-cv-05070
2:20-cv-05077
2:20-cv-05079
2:20-cv-05088
2:20-cv-05092
2:20-cv-05244

Exhibit A
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640

Robert Keenan, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Douglas W.
Keenan, Deceased
Karen Boyer
William Broyles, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary J.
Broyles, Deceased
Renee McPheeters, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary Lou
Christopher, Deceased
Linda Donaldson
Barbara Dryer
Eva M Longino
Debra Mitchell, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Dennis M.
Mitchell, Deceased
Vonda Smith, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Thomas D.
Smith, Deceased
John Johnson
Sharon D. Lee
Victor Culpepper, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lisa
Culpepper, Deceased
Brenda Kellam
Sandra Loesche
Alex Montiel

2:20-cv-05266
2:20-cv-05327
2:20-cv-05329
2:20-cv-05343
2:20-cv-05344
2:20-cv-05345
2:20-cv-05354
2:20-cv-05360
2:20-cv-05368
2:20-cv-05380
2:20-cv-06715
2:20-cv-06986
2:20-cv-07294
2:20-cv-07344
2:20-cv-07345