# BROWN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP

> District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10276489

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 10, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10276489

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10276489. Public record. Not legal advice.