COLLINS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: April 28, 2023
• Docket: 2:18-cv-04482
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS 2:17-MD-2789 (CCC)(LDW) LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2789)

This Document Relates to: OPINION AND ORDER All cases listed in Exhibit A

CECCHI, District Judge. I. Introduction This matter comes before the Court upon Case Management Order (“CMO”) No. 60, ECF No. 709, entered on November 19, 2021, which identified 962 cases in which Pfizer, Inc.1 (“Pfizer”) alleged that service of the summons and complaint had not been effected and in which no proof of service appeared on the docket of the case. CMO No. 60 ordered the plaintiffs in those cases within thirty days to (1) establish that service was effected on Pfizer as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure2 by filing proof of service, (2) voluntarily dismiss Pfizer, or (3) show cause why Pfizer should not be dismissed within thirty days of entry of the Order. CMO No. 60, at 2, ECF No. 709. CMO No. 60 ordered Plaintiffs to file their responses on the dockets of the individual cases, and permitted Pfizer to oppose within thirty days of each plaintiff’s response.3 Plaintiffs were specifically advised that “[f]ailure to comply with the terms of this Order will result in the dismissal of the case as to Pfizer.” CMO No. 60, at 2.

1 Sometimes identified as Pfiser, Inc. 2 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. 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). 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 ninety- day period in Rule 4(m) in 41 cases; between two to three years after the ninety-day period in 80 cases; and between three to just over four years after the ninety-day period in 458 cases. No Plaintiff here has dismissed Pfizer from their case. Accordingly, due to untimely service and lack of good cause shown, it is appropriate that Pfizer be dismissed from the cases identified in Exhibit A. a. Plaintiffs Do Not Demonstrate Good Cause Mandating an Extension of Time to Serve Plaintiffs’ responses to CMO No. 60 do not demonstrate good cause excusing their lack of timely service pursuant to Rule 4(m). Good cause requires “a demonstration of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement . . . and some reasonable basis for noncompliance with the time specified in the rules.” MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097. To determine whether good cause exists, the Court considers “(1) reasonableness of plaintiff’s efforts to serve (2) prejudice to the defendant by lack of timely service and (3) whether plaintiff moved for an enlargement of time to serve.” Id. The primary focus must always be on “the plaintiff’s reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first place.” Id. Yet here, Plaintiffs have not even attempted to show good cause for their failure to timely serve or addressed the reasons for

untimeliness. See, e.g., Pl. Allen Pyne’s Resp. to Orders to Show Cause Regarding Service of Process, Ex. A, No. 2:18-cv-06938, ECF No. 10-1 (“Pyne Resp.”). Accordingly, as the Court further explains, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate good cause for failure to timely serve in compliance with Rule 4(m). As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs responded to CMO No. 60 by filing virtually identical responses that do not reference Pfizer’s specific conduct. These responses attached an exhibit with limited information about the Plaintiffs’ individual cases, but did not include any documentation to support their assertions in the exhibit. The information in these exhibits filed by Plaintiffs includes such information as the date of alleged service (if any), whether a defendant had filed a notice of appearance, whether a defendant had filed a short form answer,

whether a Plaintiff Fact Sheet had been uploaded to Marker Group, whether a Defense Fact Sheet had been served, and whether a defendant had sent a deficiency letter related to the Plaintiff Fact Sheet. See, e.g., Pyne Resp.; Nancy Hignite’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause Regarding Service of Process, No. 2:18-cv-02649, ECF No. 12 (“Hignite Resp.”). In addition, Plaintiffs’ briefing does not address any reasons for the failure to timely serve and instead focuses on arguments concerning Pfizer’s purported waiver of service and the Court’s authority for discretionary extensions. See Houser v. Williams, No. 16-9072, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43518, at *6 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2020) (citing MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097) (finding dismissal warranted where plaintiff did not serve the complaint for months after an agreed-upon extension and then failed to detail any

steps he took towards serving defendant within the extended time afforded by the court). Turning to the factors for evaluating good cause, the first factor examines the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s efforts to serve the complaint. As noted, Plaintiffs offer no explanation for the failure to timely serve, nor an adequate description of reasonable steps that plaintiffs took to effectuate timely service as required by Rule 4(m). And none of the Plaintiffs at issue here were close to satisfying timely service under Rule 4(m). As previously stated, in 579 cases, service was effected at least one year after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed; in 458 of the 579 cases, or 79 percent, service was effected over three years after the ninety-day period under Rule 4(m) had lapsed. The 61 Plaintiffs who have never served Pfizer also did not

provide any explanation justifying why they have yet to serve Pfizer. Given Plaintiffs’ lack of sufficient efforts to serve the complaint, this factor weighs heavily in favor of Pfizer. Under the second factor, the Court considers prejudice to Pfizer by lack of timely service. Here, Plaintiffs’ failure to serve caused Pfizer to expend time and resources through investigation, consultation with opposing counsel, and advocating for and responding to case management orders – all to determine whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation against them. W. Coasts Quartz Corp. v. M.E.C. Tech, Inc., 2017 WL 1944197, at *2 (D.N.J. May 9, 2017). Moreover, this Court has previously determined that Pfizer has been prejudiced by the delayed service or non-service. See Order Regarding CMO No. 60, at 7, ECF No. 887. Given the prejudice to Pfizer resulting from Plaintiffs’ failure to timely serve, this factor cuts against good cause. Even if Plaintiffs had demonstrated lack of prejudice to Pfizer, “absence of prejudice alone can never constitute good cause to excuse late service.” MCI Telecomms Corp., 71 F.3d at 1097. Finally, under the third factor, while Plaintiffs have now requested an extension of time to serve Pfizer, they did so only after CMO No. 60 was entered, which was a year or more after the

time to serve Pfizer in compliance with Rule 4(m) had lapsed. See, e.g., Pyne Resp.; Hignite Resp. Plaintiffs have not explained why they did not request an extension of time to serve Pfizer until after CMO No. 60 was entered by this Court. Accordingly, this factor similarly weighs in favor of Pfizer and against Plaintiffs’ showing of good cause. Considering the three factors used to evaluate whether good cause has been demonstrated, Plaintiffs here have not demonstrated good cause for their failure to serve Pfizer in compliance with Rule 4(m). b. Plaintiffs Have Not Persuaded the Court That a Discretionary Extension is Warranted

In the absence of a showing of good cause mandating an extension to effectuate service, the Court nonetheless has discretion to either dismiss the case or permit extension. Because Plaintiffs have not established good cause, see supra, they must rely on the Court’s discretionary authority to excuse failures to comply with Rule 4(m). See Edwards v. Hillman, 849 F. App’x. 23, 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 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. agreement “covered Plaintiffs who could not yet show proof of use as to a Pfizer product” and, moreover, did not identify a specific defendant or which PPI products were at issue as to a particular potential plaintiff. See, e.g., No. 18-cv-04095, ECF No. 19 at 10 n.3. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Asbestos is misplaced and they have not demonstrated that Pfizer had actual notice of pending litigation.

Turning to prejudice to the defendant—the second factor—the Court reiterates its analysis when discussing the same factor in the context of good cause. See supra III.a (noting Pfizer expended time and resources through its repeated attempts to determine whether Plaintiffs intended to pursue litigation against them, including its own independent inquiries, as well as meetings with counsel and the special master). Further, this Court has previously found in this MDL (with respect to a different defendant) that “[w]asted time and resources and inconvenience standing alone may constitute sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal.” CMO No. 63 at 7 (citing Miller v. Advocare, LLC, No. 12-01069, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71451, at *8-9 (D.N.J. May 21, 2013). Accordingly, this factor weighs against Plaintiffs’ request.

Regarding the statute of limitations, the third factor, Plaintiffs argue that the applicable statute of limitations in most, if not all, of the actions subject to CMO No. 60 has expired. See, e.g., Pyne Resp. at 21. However, “the expiration of the statute of limitations does not require the court to extend the time for service, as the court has discretion to dismiss the case even if the refiling of the action is barred.” MCI Telecomms. Corp., 71 F.3d at 1098. Given the length of time between filing and service in the cases of these Plaintiffs—in some cases over four years— Plaintiffs’ argument that the potential lapse of the statute of limitations warrants extension is not compelling. Relatedly, Plaintiffs have not alleged that Pfizer engaged in any conduct to impede or frustrate timely service. See Spence, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15 (fourth factor). These factors thus militate against a discretionary extension as well. The final factor guiding the Court’s discretion examines whether the plaintiff is represented by counsel. See Spence, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80015, at *15. Plaintiffs here are all represented by counsel. And, in this context, “[e]ven when delay [in service] results from inadvertence of

counsel, it need not be excused.” Petrucelli, 46 F.3d at 1307. This factor thus also weighs against a discretionary extension. Weighing all of the above factors, the Court is not persuaded that exercising its discretion to grant an extension to effectuate service on Pfizer is warranted. Moreover, in addition to the factors counseling against an extension, the Court’s conclusion is further supported by Plaintiffs’ failure to provide an explanation as to why they did not timely serve Pfizer (in the 579 cases where service was late) or why they did not serve Pfizer at all (in the remaining 61 cases).6 c. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown that Pfizer Waived its Defense to Untimely Service

Plaintiffs generally assert that Pfizer waived any defense related to untimely service by virtue of its conduct in this MDL litigation. Plaintiffs argue that dismissal of their claims against Pfizer is inappropriate in those cases where (1) Pfizer either filed an answer without raising service or answered before service; (2) Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss without raising service; or (3) Pfizer manifested some intention to defend the case through Pfizer’s conduct. See, e.g., Pyne

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. Respo. at § IV.B; Hignite Resp. at § IV.B. For the below reasons, the Court finds that Pfizer has not waived its defense to untimely service. The Court first turns to Plaintiffs’ argument that Pfizer waived service either by filing an answer without raising service or by answering before service. Plaintiffs assert that, as a general matter, waiver of service may occur where a defendant files an answer as its first responsive

pleading and the answer fails to plead the defense. See, e.g., Pyne Resp. at 7. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that there are three potential scenarios where service has been waived by answer. First, Plaintiffs claim that in any case where Pfizer filed a short form answer, service was waived because the short form answer simply incorporated Pfizer’s initial long form answer. This, Plaintiffs maintain, is because the long form answer did not assert the defense of lack of service. See, e.g., id. Second, since a defendant’s notice of appearance in a specific case may serve as a short form answer, see Case Management Order No. 27 (ECF No. 260), Plaintiffs contend that a notice of appearance after service is functionally the same as a short form answer—it incorporates the long form answer, which does not assert the defense of lack of service. Finally, Plaintiffs argue

that a notice of appearance before service waives this defense under the terms of Case Management Order No. 27 for cases filed after September 24, 2018. See, e.g., Pyne Resp. at 8; see also CMO No. 27, at § I.A. Regardless of the merits of these arguments as a matter of law, none of these scenarios are applicable to Pfizer here. Only two Plaintiffs in the cases identified in Exhibit A assert that a “Defendant” actually filed an answer or filed a notice of appearance in their case, but the dockets in those two cases clearly reflect that Pfizer did not file an answer or notice of appearance in those two cases. See Pl. Sharon Nali’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, Ex. A, 2:18-cv-07667, ECF No. 14-1; Pl. Carol Presley’s Resp. to Order to Show Cause, Ex. A, 2:19-cv-16903, ECF No. 6-1. With these two Plaintiffs’ specific assertions contradicted by their dockets, none of the Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A have shown that Pfizer either filed a short form answer or a notice of appearance. Thus, Plaintiffs’ arguments asserting waiver based on Pfizer’s answers (or appearances) do not apply here. Turning to Plaintiffs’ next argument, Plaintiffs assert that Pfizer waived its defense to lack

of service in those cases where Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss for purported failure to comply with the tolling agreement without specifically raising the defense of service. However, Pfizer did not raise service in its motions to dismiss because an alternate procedure, proposed and agreed upon by the parties, was set forth in a stipulated court order, with their defenses expressly preserved by CMO No. 7. See CMO No. 7, ECF No. 112, at 7 (“Defendants also reserve all rights to move to dismiss . . . under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule[] 12. Defendants shall only be permitted to file said motions to dismiss subject to leave of this Court.”). CMO No. 7 expressly restricted defendants from moving to dismiss individual plaintiffs under Rule 12 absent leave of this Court. The federal rules bar a defendant from later moving to dismiss for insufficient service of process

only when the party “could have raised these objections in their [earlier] motion to dismiss the complaint.” Denkins v. William Penn Sch. Dist., No. 20-02228, 2020 WL 5880132, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2020); accord Wright & Miller, 5C Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1391 (“If one or more of these defenses are omitted from the initial motion but were ‘then available’ to the movant, they are permanently lost.”). In filing its authorized dismissal motions pursuant to the tolling agreement and CMO No. 7, Pfizer did not have leave to raise any other defense, including insufficient service as to a particular case. Having understood and agreed that such motions were to be deferred to a later date and with leave of the Court, it is not correct that Pfizer, or any other defendant, waived its defense of service by failing to argue it in their motions to dismiss related to purported violations of the tolling agreement. Plaintiffs’ final argument on waiver is that Pfizer waived its defense of service through its conduct in the PPI litigation as a whole or in individual cases. As to the argument that Pfizer waived service through its conduct in the PPI litigation as a whole, plaintiffs rely on In re Cathode

Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, No. 07-5944, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78902 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014). In that case, certain defendants raised their Rule 12(b)(5) defense to service in a consolidated motion to dismiss, but subsequently abandoned that 12(b)(5) motion in a later filing and then continued to participate in litigation for four years. The court found that under these circumstances those defendants had waived their defense of lack of service. Id. at *84-88. The case is inapposite, however, as Pfizer never previously raised—and abandoned—the defense of service in any of the cases identified here, and indeed was unable to without leave of the Court under CMO No. 7, as agreed to by the parties. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ general response argues that Pfizer waived its defense of service

by participating in the litigation of individual cases, citing In re: Ethicon, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00758, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148765 (S.D.W.V. Oct. 27, 2016). In that case, the defendants acknowledged receipt of a plaintiff profile form, requested additional information from the plaintiffs regarding their claims, and threatened to pursue a remedy in court if the plaintiff did not comply with their request. Id. at *6. While eighty-four Plaintiffs herein claim that they received a deficiency letter related to their Plaintiff Fact Sheet, they do not specifically allege whether Pfizer or another defendant sent that deficiency letter, nor did they include a copy of the deficiency letter in their response. Pfizer’s counsel has represented that Pfizer did not issue any Plaintiff Fact Sheet deficiency letters to the plaintiffs in the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto and that it has not threatened to pursue a judicial remedy if the plaintiff did not cure the deficiency. In short, none of these plaintiffs has actually demonstrated that Pfizer has meaningfully participated in the litigation in their particular case. Further, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ suggestion to impute Pfizer’s conduct in defending itself in cases not subject to CMO No. 60 to suggest that Pfizer waived its defense of service of process in the specific cases identified in Exhibit A hereto.

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

IV. Conclusion CMO No. 60 required Plaintiffs to (1) show they timely served Pfizer pursuant to Rule 4(m), (2) dismiss Pfizer from their case, or (3) show cause why this Court should not dismiss Pfizer from their cases. Plaintiffs whose cases are on Exhibit A have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating good cause for failure to comply with CMO No. 60 and effectuate timely service, and have failed to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion not to dismiss Pfizer from their cases. Accordingly, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for extensions and orders Pfizer to be dismissed without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A.’ Accordingly, ITIS on this 24 _ day of April, 2023; ORDERED that Pfizer shall be DISMISSED without prejudice from the cases identified in Exhibit A hereto. SO ORDERED. CA. Lo CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.

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

1 Nancy Hignite 2:18-cv-02649 2 James U. Hodges 2:18-cv-02952 3 Ruthe A. Hensley 2:18-cv-03235 4 Antonio D. Davis 2:18-cv-03775 5 Misty Ashley 2:18-cv-03851 6 David Frost 2:18-cv-03861 7 Lester Hall and Ruth E. Hall 2:18-cv-03881 8 Lynda D. McKibben 2:18-cv-03885 9 Leonore L. Sosa 2:18-cv-03886 10 Garrett Sons 2:18-cv-03894 11 Todd K. Andrade 2:18-cv-04040 12 Norman Kydd 2:18-cv-04048 13 Della I. Gregg 2:18-cv-04054 14 Denver Kennett 2:18-cv-04078 15 John Ortiz 2:18-cv-04095 16 Mike Moffat 2:18-cv-04139 17 Laurie T. Lum 2:18-cv-04159 18 Betty L. Sanner 2:18-cv-04169 19 William Ketelsen 2:18-cv-04176 20 Tia Hartmann 2:18-cv-04180 21 Grady Harris 2:18-cv-04181 22 Daniel Sharp 2:18-cv-04184 23 Theresa Johnson 2:18-cv-04206 24 Mary A. Williams 2:18-cv-04208 25 Rayshell Robinson 2:18-cv-04215 26 Deborah Allen 2:18-cv-04281 27 Sharon Acevedo 2:18-cv-04282 28 Patricia Bean 2:18-cv-04283 29 Michael Barrett 2:18-cv-04290 30 Judy K. Aiken 2:18-cv-04291 31 Dale Bryan 2:18-cv-04293 32 Tonya Bates-Wilson 2:18-cv-04296 33 Donna J. Cushenberry 2:18-cv-04298 34 Stella Benefiel 2:18-cv-04304 35 Roosevelt Dunning 2:18-cv-04305 36 Gloria Eddy 2:18-cv-04308 37 Edgardo Biliran 2:18-cv-04309 38 Emma Balthazar 2:18-cv-04312 39 Antionette Borden 2:18-cv-04315 40 Shelley Hager, as Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Hager, Deceased 2:18-cv-04317 41 Anthony Elliott 2:18-cv-04318 42 Kevin Casey 2:18-cv-04319 43 George Curry 2:18-cv-04326 44 Deloris Daniel 2:18-cv-04330 47 Dennis Ledford and Tracey Ledford 2:18-cv-04477 48 Rozell Collins 2:18-cv-04482 49 Cassandra Howard 2:18-cv-04484 50 Patricia Cooper 2:18-cv-04491 51 Leray Littell 2:18-cv-04492 52 Tony Long 2:18-cv-04495 53 Sandra Davis 2:18-cv-04496 54 Robert Parham, Jr. 2:18-cv-04497 55 Climmie Gibbons 2:18-cv-04499 Teresa Harlen, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack R. Harlen, 56 2:18-cv-04500 Deceased 57 Vivian Parker 2:18-cv-04501 58 Heather P. Lott 2:18-cv-04502 59 Virginia Rackins 2:18-cv-04504 60 Otis D. Roberts 2:18-cv-04507 Robert Ludlam, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Aubie Ludlam, 61 2:18-cv-04511 Deceased 62 Jessie Martin 2:18-cv-04519 63 Mary Hankamer 2:18-cv-04520 64 Brenda R. Dale 2:18-cv-04526 65 Kelly Smith 2:18-cv-04529 66 Mary Haynes 2:18-cv-04535 67 Betty Head 2:18-cv-04538 68 Jerome Browning 2:18-cv-04827 69 Clarence Mumma 2:18-cv-04828 70 Beverly Bryant 2:18-cv-04829 71 Jose Fronda 2:18-cv-04830 72 Rolanda Allmon 2:18-cv-04831 73 Constance Guardado 2:18-cv-04833 74 Steve Slade 2:18-cv-04843 75 Donell Andrews 2:18-cv-04852 76 Joyce Watson 2:18-cv-04864 77 Jeanette Williams 2:18-cv-04868 78 Avis Hiestand 2:18-cv-04871 79 Roger Mata 2:18-cv-04872 80 Linda Bishop 2:18-cv-04873 81 Darlene Mason 2:18-cv-04874 82 Laura Raffa 2:18-cv-04877 83 Scott Allen 2:18-cv-04882 84 Max Holbrook and Joyce Holbrook 2:18-cv-04888 85 Mildred Brock 2:18-cv-04904 86 Unni Shelton 2:18-cv-04915 87 Darwin Watson 2:18-cv-04918 88 Terry Debruyn 2:18-cv-04921 89 John M. Sierra 2:18-cv-04923 92 Priscilla Smeets 2:18-cv-04938 93 Paula Ford 2:18-cv-04943 94 Joseph Spurgeon and Sambra Spurgeon 2:18-cv-04948 95 Roger Phillips 2:18-cv-05034 96 Billie Martin Stinson 2:18-cv-05038 97 Wanda Thomas 2:18-cv-05040 98 Lorenzo Valenzuela 2:18-cv-05055 99 Brenda Jo Lemley 2:18-cv-05060 100 Helen Waddle 2:18-cv-05061 101 Rodrick Whitaker 2:18-cv-05068 102 Dawn Miller 2:18-cv-05069 103 Robert Dryden 2:18-cv-05081 104 Charla Mogg 2:18-cv-05084 105 Maudell Palmer 2:18-cv-05306 106 Fred L. Johns 2:18-cv-05314 Danielle Newman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Jack F. 107 2:18-cv-05324 Newman, Deceased 108 Peggy S. Conley 2:18-cv-05343 109 Dwight W. Graley, Sr. 2:18-cv-05345 110 Scott Hannigan 2:18-cv-05351 111 Birdie D. Jackson 2:18-cv-05353 112 Rebecca M Oates 2:18-cv-05360 113 David Pierce 2:18-cv-05361 114 Teresa Byers 2:18-cv-05431 115 Donald Gibson 2:18-cv-05438 116 Michael Clarke and Maribeth Clarke 2:18-cv-05448 117 Sandra Garrett 2:18-cv-05463 118 Nancy L. Harsh 2:18-cv-05466 119 Bryan G. Swanson 2:18-cv-05476 120 Melvin Stubbs 2:18-cv-05479 121 Jennifer Wolfe 2:18-cv-05485 122 Sharon Powers 2:18-cv-05488 123 Arthur D. Warshawsky 2:18-cv-05490 124 Martha Burns 2:18-cv-05495 125 Kyle Rose 2:18-cv-05500 126 Jeffrey Jones 2:18-cv-05504 127 Burma G. Sizemore 2:18-cv-05511 128 Carmen Stevens 2:18-cv-05516 Shirley Teel, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Ezra C. Teel, 129 2:18-cv-05521 Deceased 130 James Wellman 2:18-cv-05525 131 Dara Dougherty 2:18-cv-05954 132 Sheryl Gerald 2:18-cv-05959 133 Samantha Riddle 2:18-cv-05971 134 Gwenda Steele 2:18-cv-05975 135 Deceased 2:18-cv-05976 136 George Hawkins 2:18-cv-05980 137 Willie Anderson 2:18-cv-06130 138 Mary Hollander 2:18-cv-06148 139 Lance Faulkner 2:18-cv-06154 140 Jeffrey Reed 2:18-cv-06159 141 Sharon Reid 2:18-cv-06164 142 Bartholomew Gaiera and Karen Gaiera 2:18-cv-06166 143 Kathlene Brown 2:18-cv-06171 144 Joni Barrows 2:18-cv-06178 145 Rebecca Harrington 2:18-cv-06196 146 Patricia Hasty 2:18-cv-06202 147 Richard Jackson and Judy Fontenot 2:18-cv-06214 148 Bonnie L. Mize 2:18-cv-06232 149 Jackie Knight 2:18-cv-06233 150 Tunya Lowe 2:18-cv-06256 151 Patina Johnson 2:18-cv-06274 152 Cristy Blankenship 2:18-cv-06436 153 Johnny Daniels 2:18-cv-06440 154 Emilee Palmer and Michael D. Palmer 2:18-cv-06449 Travis Charlton, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cynthia 155 2:18-cv-06476 Halbert, Deceased Nina Fernandez, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Sanra Nobil, 156 2:18-cv-06497 Deceased 157 Elizabeth Prater 2:18-cv-06506 Jerry Blosser, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 158 2:18-cv-06515 Wanda Blosser, Deceased 159 Norma Stillwagoner 2:18-cv-06520 Karen Keenan, Individually and as Proposed Representative of the Estate 160 2:18-cv-06522 of Larry Keenan, Deceased Gina Zerby, Individully and as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 161 2:18-cv-06532 Michael Zerby, Deceased 162 Michelle Wilson 2:18-cv-06540 Emilly Knotts, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cheryl Stefenel, 163 2:18-cv-06552 Deceased 164 Jacquelyn Booker 2:18-cv-06834 165 Dianne Caldwell 2:18-cv-06846 Leona Collins, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 166 2:18-cv-06869 Deniese Collins, Deceased 167 Patrick Connors 2:18-cv-06876 168 Allen Pyne 2:18-cv-06938 169 Gladys Maddox 2:18-cv-06939 170 Johnnie Oliver 2:18-cv-06947 Betty Bassett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 171 2:18-cv-06949 Robert Avera, Deceased 172 deceased 2:18-cv-06952 173 Danny Parker 2:18-cv-06964 174 Patricia Parker 2:18-cv-06975 175 Charles Howard 2:18-cv-06986 176 Teresa Hill-Ibrahim 2:18-cv-07005 Judy Bradshaw, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 177 2:18-cv-07049 Jimmy Bradshaw, Deceased 178 Victor Sackett 2:18-cv-07059 179 Virginia Boyd 2:18-cv-07090 180 Herbert Johnson 2:18-cv-07130 Joan Stoveken, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Gay 181 2:18-cv-07137 Stoveken, Deceased Angela Spicer, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 182 2:18-cv-07148 James Spicer, Deceased Amanda Turner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 183 2:18-cv-07153 Ronal Turner, Deceased 184 Jeanette Mouton 2:18-cv-07178 185 Erick Barnes 2:18-cv-07187 186 Tammy Perry 2:18-cv-07194 187 Wendy Brazill 2:18-cv-07195 188 Brenda Fletcher 2:18-cv-07203 189 Nancy Esque 2:18-cv-07208 Diane McGee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Kevin 190 2:18-cv-07239 McGee, Deceased 191 George Gale 2:18-cv-07267 Fabian Garcia, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 192 2:18-cv-07276 Yolanda Montalvo, Deceased Joann Flowers, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 193 2:18-cv-07320 Sophia Perkins, Deceased 194 Thomas Russo 2:18-cv-07340 Paul Lue, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Hyacinth 195 2:18-cv-07352 Johnson, Deceased Ernestine Mays-Mitchell, Individually and as the Representative of the 196 2:18-cv-07365 Estate of Ernest Mays, Deceased 197 Birdie Woods 2:18-cv-07438 198 Betty Apellido 2:18-cv-07557 199 Pauline Corn 2:18-cv-07584 200 Gloria Dietrich 2:18-cv-07592 201 Walker Howell 2:18-cv-07616 202 Stephanie Ralston-Bailey 2:18-cv-07617 203 Laura Richie 2:18-cv-07622 204 Regina Salisbury 2:18-cv-07632 205 Mary Skeens 2:18-cv-07637 206 Marlene Hatfield 2:18-cv-07639 207 Sharon Nali 2:18-cv-07667 208 Burgos, Deceased 2:18-cv-07688 209 Ronald Klinenberg 2:18-cv-07706 210 Luis Nesta 2:18-cv-07708 211 Lorraine Turco 2:18-cv-07713 212 Hazel Phillips 2:18-cv-07748 213 Tracie Powers 2:18-cv-07756 Mary Rivali, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Robert 214 2:18-cv-07760 Rivali, Deceased Marilyn Sullivan, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 215 2:18-cv-07781 Evelyn Sullivan, Deceased 216 Bernadine Hardie 2:18-cv-07795 Maribel Villanueva, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 217 2:18-cv-07799 Alexander Rivera-Baez, Deceased 218 Karen Vassar, Representative of the Estate of Bobby Vassar, Deceased 2:18-cv-08722 219 Odilia Perez 2:19-cv-01061 220 Dennis Quintin 2:19-cv-01813 221 Martha Griffith 2:19-cv-01853 222 William Hall 2:19-cv-01859 Brenda Willis, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 223 2:19-cv-01873 Seress Harris, Deceased 224 Gloria Haywood 2:19-cv-01881 225 Ruth Hurd 2:19-cv-01887 226 Eric Hurwitz 2:19-cv-01889 227 Patricia Joppien 2:19-cv-01897 228 Paul Jozwiak 2:19-cv-01902 229 George Bonis 2:19-cv-01931 230 Raymond Bryant 2:19-cv-01939 231 John Bottoms 2:19-cv-01945 232 Cindy Campbell 2:19-cv-01948 233 Colleen Cantwell 2:19-cv-01965 234 Gladys Carpenter 2:19-cv-01981 235 Brandon Cole 2:19-cv-02004 236 Robert Crenshaw 2:19-cv-02011 237 Wanda Crager 2:19-cv-02012 238 Jason Daniels 2:19-cv-02015 Luis Manuel Delgado, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate 239 2:19-cv-02030 of Luis C. Delgado, Deceased 240 Linda McMillen 2:19-cv-02035 241 Odessa Mitchell 2:19-cv-02040 242 Patricia Mitchell 2:19-cv-02048 243 Charles Newsom 2:19-cv-02050 244 Orestes Diaz 2:19-cv-02059 245 Helmut Otto 2:19-cv-02061 Darryl Oglesby, as Proposed Administrator of the Estate of Sandra 246 2:19-cv-02066 Carey Bowie, Individually and as the Represenetative of the Estate of 248 2:19-cv-02086 Henry Bowie, Deceased Maria Edwards, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 249 2:19-cv-02092 Francisca Camacho, Deceased 250 Warren Ketchmore 2:19-cv-02102 Juan Cantu, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 251 2:19-cv-02104 Margarita Cantu, Deceased 252 Juanita Landers 2:19-cv-02127 253 Karen Gaines 2:19-cv-02136 Brenda McCurdy, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 254 2:19-cv-02143 Rickey McCurdy, Deceased 255 Bridgette Long 2:19-cv-02159 Nettie Overton, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 256 2:19-cv-02174 Charlie Overton, Deceased 257 Glenda Long 2:19-cv-02175 258 Melissa Olson 2:19-cv-02204 Raymond Wilson, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 259 2:19-cv-02239 Randy Orr, Deceased 260 Sandra Pannell 2:19-cv-02246 261 Priscille Parent 2:19-cv-02261 262 Lucretia Peavy 2:19-cv-02275 263 Mabel Perry 2:19-cv-02318 264 Glenna Pool 2:19-cv-02335 265 Debra Primrose 2:19-cv-02356 Margaret Pryor, As the Representative of the Estate of Keith Pryor, 266 2:19-cv-02367 Deceased 267 Joyce Sheffield 2:19-cv-02377 268 Terry Sheffield 2:19-cv-02386 269 Carl Warner 2:19-cv-02456 270 Lionel Smith 2:19-cv-02464 271 Sherrie Abrahamson 2:19-cv-02469 272 Linda Stockwell 2:19-cv-02475 273 Diane Watkins 2:19-cv-02484 274 James Williams 2:19-cv-02487 275 Charles Wiley 2:19-cv-02493 Belinda Beck, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Willie 276 2:19-cv-02519 Taylor, Deceaed 277 Nathan Tyler 2:19-cv-02523 Vivian Wittner, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 278 2:19-cv-02531 Myra Wittner, Deceased 279 Darwin Valentine 2:19-cv-02547 Susan Lynn Wright, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 280 2:19-cv-02577 Tabitha Wright, Deceased 281 Donna Wooten 2:19-cv-02586 Sharon Grady, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Herbert Grady, 282 2:19-cv-02669 284 Connie Black 2:19-cv-02703 285 Laurie J Dey 2:19-cv-02873 Esmeralda Olvera, As proposed Representative of the Estate of Santos 286 2:19-CV-02877 Olvera, deceased 287 Ernest J Palmer 2:19-cv-02882 Cheryl Adams, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Belle Collins, 288 2:19-cv-02996 Deceased 289 Angela Clark 2:19-cv-03070 290 George Reyes 2:19-cv-03081 291 Joe A. Gottwald 2:19-cv-03115 292 Matt Spasoff 2:19-cv-03117 293 Nancy Fennell 2:19-cv-03132 294 Merle Kirkland 2:19-cv-03272 295 Sheila Holmes 2:19-cv-03327 296 Brenda Y. Ridyolph 2:19-cv-03419 297 Cynthia Tucker 2:19-cv-03489 298 Rosetta T. Cunningham 2:19-cv-03553 Michelle Denofa, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Frank 299 2:19-cv-03571 Denofa, Deceased 300 Paul E. Dilocker 2:19-cv-03589 301 Ruth Edwards 2:19-cv-03595 302 Phillip Cottle 2:19-cv-03618 303 Jannie Gichia 2:19-cv-03625 304 Diana Greathouse 2:19-cv-03633 Lena Turknett, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Cecilia Gaines, 305 2:19-cv-03636 Deceased 306 Suzanne Coleman-Cunningham 2:19-cv-03638 Betty Hunter, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 307 2:19-cv-03645 Thomas Hunter, Deceased 308 Noreen Davis-Xanthis 2:19-cv-03646 309 Juanita Mekwuye 2:19-cv-03652 310 Carla A. Dimatteo 2:19-cv-03658 311 Barbara Zajack 2:19-cv-03663 312 Jennifer Collins 2:19-cv-03679 313 Melissa Harris 2:19-cv-03684 314 Tracy Henderson 2:19-cv-03685 315 Linwood Flemister 2:19-cv-03686 316 James W. Franklin, Sr. 2:19-cv-03711 317 Keisha Kimbrough 2:19-cv-03723 318 Cynthia Lawhorn 2:19-cv-03739 319 Lynell Johnson 2:19-cv-03784 320 Michael Anthony Jones 2:19-cv-03806 321 Cara Kreider 2:19-cv-03817 322 Stephen C. McNeill 2:19-cv-03823 Michael DePhillipo, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 323 2:19-cv-03858 Melissa Konarski, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 325 2:19-cv-03869 Pamela Zaccardi, Deceased 326 Kevin M. Takacs 2:19-cv-03921 327 Anna B. Franks 2:19-cv-03984 328 Brandon R. Ward 2:19-cv-03987 329 Raymond A. Watson 2:19-cv-04002 330 Darren Williams 2:19-cv-04012 331 Belinda L. Laird 2:19-cv-04031 332 Anita Loudy 2:19-cv-04113 333 Sandra Detherage 2:19-cv-04133 334 Carol Rosenblum 2:19-cv-04146 335 Linda Barnett 2:19-cv-04152 336 Keith Ellery 2:19-cv-04166 337 Kerry Bland 2:19-cv-04178 338 Denise Garrette 2:19-cv-04188 339 Josette Schaffer 2:19-cv-04192 John Danso, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Vickie 340 2:19-cv-04204 Danso, Deceased 341 Lawrence Lucerne 2:19-cv-04209 342 Sandra Mason 2:19-cv-04218 343 Beverly McCaleb 2:19-cv-04224 344 Karen E. Rawlings 2:19-cv-04226 Veda McDonald-Rhodes, Individually and as the Representative of the 345 2:19-cv-04228 Estate of Andre McDonald, Deceased 346 Joanne Smith 2:19-cv-04234 347 Diane Wood 2:19-cv-04242 348 Terry L. Tharp 2:19-cv-04250 349 Donald Torgerson 2:19-cv-04254 350 Mary Burchett 2:19-cv-04470 351 Michael Bowen 2:19-cv-04503 352 Curtis Banks, Jr. 2:19-cv-04514 353 Catherine Antwine 2:19-cv-04516 354 Jackie L. Brown 2:19-cv-04518 355 Joseph A. Archer 2:19-cv-04519 356 Margie T. Bannister 2:19-cv-04528 357 Leta Bannon 2:19-cv-04535 358 Janice Weibley, on behalf of Elizabeth L. Boyd 2:19-cv-04537 359 Richard Bailey 2:19-cv-04559 360 Debra Bramblett 2:19-cv-04561 361 Brent Bregan 2:19-cv-04574 362 Renee E. Adkins 2:19-cv-04623 363 Damisha L. Bishop 2:19-cv-04684 364 Joe Alfieri 2:19-cv-04690 365 Shirley Bass 2:19-cv-04703 366 Alice Baxter 2:19-cv-04722 367 Deceased 2:19-cv-04750 368 Twila M. Dillon 2:19-cv-04790 369 Dora Chatman 2:19-cv-04826 370 David A. Ealy 2:19-cv-04837 371 Albert G. Collins 2:19-cv-04853 372 Nelda Dugas 2:19-cv-04861 373 James Drain 2:19-cv-04863 374 Tina Dasher 2:19-cv-04882 375 Augusta L. Colson 2:19-cv-04909 376 John Elliott 2:19-cv-04913 377 David Andrews 2:19-cv-04914 378 Adela Anguiano 2:19-cv-04927 379 Troy Ersch 2:19-cv-04932 380 Ronald R. Francis 2:19-cv-04975 381 Angela Clinton 2:19-cv-04981 382 Robin Fizhugh 2:19-cv-05006 383 Mary Duncan 2:19-cv-05072 384 Charlotte Edwards 2:19-cv-05097 385 Matilda Gagliardi 2:19-cv-05119 386 Barbara S. Foutty 2:19-cv-05132 387 Angela K. Henry 2:19-cv-05185 388 Bobby G Jones 2:19-cv-05196 389 Darlene Huettenberger 2:19-cv-05197 390 Gary D. Johnson 2:19-cv-05199 391 Helen Humphrey 2:19-cv-05243 392 Ronnie W. Johnson 2:19-cv-05247 393 Donna Hines 2:19-cv-05275 394 Denice M Justice 2:19-cv-05307 395 Connie Ivory 2:19-cv-05324 396 Constance Gary 2:19-cv-05335 397 Barton S. Hickey 2:19-cv-05353 398 Marne Gonzales 2:19-cv-05355 399 Pamela Kazak 2:19-cv-05369 400 Phyllis J. Kinsey 2:19-cv-05376 401 Steven Graham 2:19-cv-05547 402 June S. Grumbein 2:19-cv-05558 403 Alcadio Guajardo, III 2:19-cv-05583 404 Theresa R. Grove 2:19-cv-05606 405 Darren Gines 2:19-cv-05608 406 Connie Gamez 2:19-cv-05652 407 Paul Glasper 2:19-cv-05699 408 Doris Harder 2:19-cv-05791 409 Rashidah Id-Deen 2:19-cv-05805 410 Bonnie Holtgrew 2:19-cv-05814 411 Jeffrey A Heaps 2:19-cv-05853 414 Lisa Mitchell 2:19-cv-06080 415 Berchia M. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06106 416 Jason R. Mitchell 2:19-cv-06110 417 Anna Hoppes 2:19-cv-06157 418 Carson E. Wingo 2:19-cv-06224 419 Joe N. Little 2:19-cv-06225 420 Betty J. Withrow 2:19-cv-06226 421 Annette London 2:19-cv-06231 422 Penny E Wolfe 2:19-cv-06237 423 Melissa Lonsdale 2:19-cv-06246 424 Richard A. Lovelace 2:19-cv-06320 425 Desiree Lovins 2:19-cv-06323 426 Betty Lowther 2:19-cv-06374 427 Joseph W. Lucas 2:19-cv-06376 428 Martin Masar Jr. 2:19-cv-06432 429 James Mason 2:19-cv-06444 430 Lynda Mercer 2:19-cv-06456 431 Lena Woolfolk 2:19-cv-06457 432 Arlene Miller 2:19-cv-06496 433 Thelma McClellen 2:19-cv-06520 434 Brenda McConnachie 2:19-cv-06522 435 Grachell L. Manuel 2:19-cv-06537 436 Uri Moscovici 2:19-cv-06541 437 Marilyn Young 2:19-cv-06599 438 Terry Hays-Booker 2:19-cv-06613 439 Missouri McCann 2:19-cv-06614 440 Marybelle J. Nohejl and Donald Nohejl 2:19-cv-06648 441 Colton Norwood 2:19-cv-06653 442 Norma J. Ochoa 2:19-cv-06657 443 Herschel Overby 2:19-cv-06681 444 Sherrie Owerko 2:19-cv-06685 445 Deborah L. Patterson 2:19-cv-06706 446 Shirley Murray 2:19-cv-06713 447 David Peterson, Sr. 2:19-cv-06827 448 Leonard Nesbitt 2:19-cv-06828 449 Alvin Williamson 2:19-cv-06848 450 David O. Pinto 2:19-cv-06874 451 Andrew E. Polly 2:19-cv-06890 452 Emily Nichols 2:19-cv-06894 453 Joyce Niemi 2:19-cv-06899 454 Norma Wright 2:19-cv-06918 455 Misty C. Powell 2:19-cv-06966 456 Leon Rhodes and Veronica Rhodes 2:19-cv-06967 457 Linda Roach 2:19-cv-07057 458 Sharon Raabe 2:19-cv-07069 461 Brandi Peebles 2:19-cv-07166 462 William Schiffert 2:19-cv-07203 463 Darlet A. Simile 2:19-cv-07208 464 Ben Schwartz 2:19-cv-07238 465 Robert Smith 2:19-cv-07247 Rita Scott, As Proposed Representative of the Estate of Melvern Scott, 466 2:19-cv-07250 Deceased 467 Roberta Ruddy 2:19-cv-07297 468 Scott E. Shaner 2:19-cv-07348 469 Amos Smith 2:19-cv-07350 470 Anita L. Shank 2:19-cv-07352 471 Sharon Smith 2:19-cv-07389 472 Valorie Sherrod 2:19-cv-07390 473 Annette H. Shook 2:19-cv-07400 474 Ysleta Smith 2:19-cv-07403 475 Arlene Sidenstick 2:19-cv-07425 476 Heidi McGee 2:19-cv-07516 477 Laronda M. McMurray 2:19-cv-07540 478 Shanda M. Meacacke 2:19-cv-07543 479 Brenda Swift 2:19-cv-07558 480 Dawn Takacs 2:19-cv-07560 481 Ruby M. Terrasas 2:19-cv-07589 482 Pamela D. Terry 2:19-cv-07590 483 Ruth Thompson 2:19-cv-07605 484 Cheryl Russell 2:19-cv-07635 485 Courtney Stark 2:19-cv-07636 486 Sally D. Reed 2:19-cv-07642 487 Sandra Steen 2:19-cv-07658 488 Sonja F. Anthony 2:19-cv-07681 489 Nadine Reese 2:19-cv-07732 490 Tammy Sateriale 2:19-cv-07793 491 Arnoldo Sauceda 2:19-cv-07799 492 Rodney Stewart 2:19-cv-07800 493 Nicholas Savini 2:19-cv-07825 494 Joan v. Streek 2:19-cv-07857 495 Emma L. White 2:19-cv-07869 496 Susan Reitz 2:19-cv-07879 497 Kevin Wiggs 2:19-cv-07893 498 Robert W. Tonini 2:19-cv-07908 499 Carmen Vitello 2:19-cv-08007 500 Brenda J. Wadman 2:19-cv-08050 Jami Butler, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of David 501 2:19-cv-08067 Ayers, Deceased 502 Bonnie S. Walburn 2:19-cv-08097 503 Dianne C. Walker 2:19-cv-08137 506 Corderro Watts 2:19-cv-08325 507 Wayne Price 2:19-cv-08421 508 Daniel E. Varner 2:19-cv-08449 509 Audrey M. Werner 2:19-cv-08547 510 Joseph White Sr. 2:19-cv-08573 511 Robert Acosta 2:19-cv-08709 512 Wilma Bibbs 2:19-cv-10048 513 Shirley Brantley 2:19-cv-10050 Esther Garza, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Jorge 514 2:19-cv-10059 Garza, Deceased 515 James Goff 2:19-cv-10060 516 Regla Hernandez 2:19-cv-10064 Elizabeth Hoover, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 517 2:19-cv-10069 Katharina Hoover, Deceased 518 Barbara Jensen 2:19-cv-10072 519 Lorenzo Limon 2:19-cv-10079 520 Andrew Mae Martin 2:19-cv-10083 521 Delaine Moore 2:19-cv-10087 Allawana Parsons, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 522 2:19-cv-10088 Smith Parsons, Deceased 523 Lydia Robinson 2:19-cv-10092 524 Felicita Santos 2:19-cv-10094 Margaret Chappel, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 525 2:19-cv-10102 Adrian Smith, Deceased 526 Ernestine Thompson 2:19-cv-10115 527 Rosa Vega 2:19-cv-10129 528 Katie Ware 2:19-cv-10141 529 Barbara Wargo 2:19-cv-10142 530 Billy Wiginton 2:19-cv-10143 531 Scott Wright 2:19-cv-10145 532 Brenda Wyatt 2:19-cv-10146 Sheila Cuffee, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 533 2:19-cv-10147 Corinne Blackwell, Deceased 534 Terri Bullock Dortmundt 2:19-cv-10715 Elisa Puentes, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Lucy 535 2:19-cv-11000 Hernandez, Deceased 536 Kimberly Ann Tomajko 2:19-cv-11010 Billie Whitehead, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 537 2:19-cv-11013 Artis Whitehead, Deceased 538 Judy Edwards 2:19-cv-11320 539 Kevin Hickles, Sr. 2:19-cv-11329 540 George D. Pulford 2:19-cv-11375 541 Roxanne Robertson 2:19-cv-11575 542 Julia K. Strickland 2:19-cv-11582 543 Sharon L. Thorne 2:19-cv-11585 Terri McCrea, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Franklin D. 546 2:19-cv-11857 McCrea, Sr. 547 Nina Rosemond 2:19-cv-11862 548 Temika Smith 2:19-cv-11866 549 Lucy M. Spinner 2:19-cv-11888 550 Doris Bowens 2:19-cv-13354 551 Raymond Brisson 2:19-cv-13490 552 Earnest Thomas 2:19-cv-13491 553 Gregory Lomax 2:19-cv-13677 554 Arthuretta Watford 2:19-cv-13678 555 Thomas Bradd 2:19-cv-14061 Davida Linn-Cammarano, Individually and as the Representative of the 556 2:19-cv-14064 Estate of Frank Cammarano, Deceased Marilyn Padgett, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 557 2:19-cv-14065 Novalynn Collins, Deceased 558 Paul Cyrus 2:19-cv-14066 559 Joshua Cole 2:19-cv-14513 560 Karen King 2:19-cv-14732 Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 561 2:19-cv-15341 Irene Brown, Deceased Louis Brown, Jr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 562 2:19-cv-15342 Lewis Brown, Sr., Deceased 563 Jeffrey Taylor 2:19-cv-15345 564 Eddie Felder 2:19-cv-15445 Karen Wells, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 565 2:19-cv-15570 Michael Wells, Deceased 566 Larry Moore 2:19-cv-15571 567 Paul Greer 2:19-cv-15777 568 Mark Marcello 2:19-cv-15881 569 Marilyn Pritchard 2:19-cv-16196 570 Carol Presley 2:19-cv-16903 571 Danny Garabedian 2:19-cv-16905 572 Robert McCray 2:19-cv-17096 573 Jack Schonenberger 2:19-cv-17541 Victor Rodriguez, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of 574 2:19-cv-17658 Susan Rodriguez, Deceased 575 Stephen Marchut 2:19-cv-17991 576 Richard Elstun 2:19-cv-18108 577 Karen Arndt 2:19-cv-18304 578 Shirley Howard 2:19-cv-19780 579 Robin Noblin 2:19-cv-19781 580 James Cadieux 2:19-cv-21720 581 Brandy Ramirez 2:19-cv-21958 582 Mary Medeiros 2:19-cv-21962 583 Lynetta J. Hollingworth 2:19-cv-22041 584 Thompson, Sr., Deceased 2:19-cv-22153 Weldon Paul Steadman, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of 585 2:19-cv-22221 Phyllis Steadman, Deceased 586 Jonathan E Beckham 2:20-cv-00979 587 Kimberly J Burrows 2:20-cv-00984 588 Kenneth B. Cousette 2:20-cv-00986 589 Edward L. Thomas 2:20-cv-01015 590 Stephen Deloney 2:20-cv-01028 591 Kathreen Hensley 2:20-cv-01523 592 Brenda Williams, Individually and as PR of the Estate of Alvin Williams 2:20-cv-01844 593 Sterling Binns 2:20-cv-02070 594 Martha Jones 2:20-cv-03162 595 Ernest Nelson Jr. 2:20-cv-03422 596 Pasquale A Palange 2:20-cv-04531 597 Elena Patrizio 2:20-cv-04539 598 Dorothy R Lewis 2:20-cv-04636 599 Barbara Minchew 2:20-cv-04644 600 Rebecca Ann Gordon 2:20-cv-04667 601 Janice C. Rodgers 2:20-cv-04740 602 Gary Friend 2:20-cv-04760 603 Charles F Duke 2:20-cv-04792 604 Linda B Ross 2:20-cv-04811 605 Cheryl K Strouse 2:20-cv-04829 606 Glenda Weeks 2:20-cv-04841 Sherry White, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Raymond 607 2:20-cv-04844 White, Deceased 608 Jacqueline Williams 2:20-cv-04846 609 Mary Zangara 2:20-cv-04850 610 William Clinton 2:20-cv-04884 611 Robert Shawn Trybala 2:20-cv-04923 612 Jane Cedar 2:20-cv-04940 613 Alma J. Williams 2:20-cv-04956 614 Jennefer Prepelica 2:20-cv-04957 615 John E. Pumphrey, Jr. 2:20-cv-04962 616 Sue Brewer 2:20-cv-05029 617 Joan C. Harper 2:20-cv-05040 618 Ella Norman 2:20-cv-05052 619 Susan M. Pierce 2:20-cv-05066 Hyram Archdale, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Kathleen K. 620 2:20-cv-05070 Price, Deceased 621 Christopher Ritenour 2:20-cv-05077 622 Laura J Sutphin 2:20-cv-05079 623 Quintina N. Wright 2:20-cv-05088 624 James Ziegler 2:20-cv-05092 626 Keenan, Deceased 2:20-cv-05266 627 Karen Boyer 2:20-cv-05327 William Broyles, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary J. 628 2:20-cv-05329 Broyles, Deceased Renee McPheeters, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Mary Lou 629 2:20-cv-05343 Christopher, Deceased 630 Linda Donaldson 2:20-cv-05344 631 Barbara Dryer 2:20-cv-05345 632 Eva M Longino 2:20-cv-05354 Debra Mitchell, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Dennis M. 633 2:20-cv-05360 Mitchell, Deceased Vonda Smith, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Thomas D. 634 2:20-cv-05368 Smith, Deceased 635 John Johnson 2:20-cv-05380 636 Sharon D. Lee 2:20-cv-06715 Victor Culpepper, as Proposed Representative of the Estate of Lisa 637 2:20-cv-06986 Culpepper, Deceased 638 Brenda Kellam 2:20-cv-07294 639 Sandra Loesche 2:20-cv-07344 640 Alex Montiel 2:20-cv-07345