# Hill v. MHM Support Services

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · January 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10785856

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** January 21, 2025
- **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/10785856

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

REGINA M. HILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:24-cv-00971-JAR
)
MHM SUPPORT SERVICES, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant MHM
Support Services. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff Regina M. Hill filed a response. ECF No. 29. MHM
filed a reply. ECF No. 31. This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the
reasons set forth below, MHM’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court
will dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims except for her retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Action of 1964 (“Title VII”). The Court will also direct Plaintiff to file a second
amended complaint setting out her allegations in numbered paragraphs and otherwise
conforming to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Local Rules.
Background
Plaintiff initially filed her pro se Complaint on July 15, 2024. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s
original Complaint raised several claims of employment discrimination against Mercy Hospital.
She checked boxes indicating she was bringing claims under Title VII, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), and for retaliation. Plaintiff also checked boxes indicating
that she was discriminated against because of her race, national origin, color, and disability.
Plaintiff alleged that she was discriminated against in the terms and conditions of her
employment, retaliated against, subjected to harassment, unlawfully terminated and “called racial
slurs, made fun of [on account of her] race . . . and [Mercy Hospital] thought it was funny when
[Plaintiff] complained about it, and they made up lies on [her].” ECF No. 1 at 4. The Court
interpreted Plaintiff’s factual assertions to allege a hostile work environment/harassment claim

under Title VII. ECF No. 4 at 3.
On July 18, 2024, and upon the Court’s initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the
Court found that Plaintiff’s original Complaint sufficiently stated a claim under Title VII for
retaliatory discharge against Mercy Hospital but failed to state claims under the ADA for
disability discrimination or failure to accommodate. The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to
properly allege claims under Title VII for race and color discrimination, discrimination in the
terms and conditions of her employment, and/or harassment/hostile work environment. Id. at 6.
Specifically, as to Plaintiff’s ADA claims, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege facts
indicating how her alleged disability—fibromyalgia—substantially impaired a major life activity,
how it affected her work, who allegedly knew of her disability, or who at work perceived her as

disabled. Similarly, as to her Title VII claims, the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to allege
that she was a member of a protected class (she did not allege her race or color), that she was
meeting the employer’s legitimate expectations, that she suffered an adverse employment action,
or that she was treated differently than similarly situated employees who were not members of
her protected class. The Court also found that Plaintiff had failed to indicate in her Charge of
Discrimination1 that she was asserting race and color discrimination claims under Title VII, or

1 Plaintiff alleges in her Charge of Discrimination:

1. I was hired by the above-mentioned employer on or about December 28,
2022, as a PCA (Nurse’s Assistant), making approximately $15.00 per hour. My
employment ended in approximately mid-May 2023.
hostile work environment/harassment, or discrimination in the terms and conditions of her
employment. For these reasons, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims against Mercy
Hospital except for one claim of retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Id. at 11–12; ECF No. 5.
On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff appealed the partial dismissal of her claims. ECF No. 8. On

August 14, 2024, the Eighth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. ECF No. 12. On September 17, 2024, the mandate issued from the Eighth Circuit,
and this Court recovered jurisdiction. ECF No. 16.
On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint. ECF
No. 21. On October 28, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, and
Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was detached and filed as Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 25.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint again raises claims under Title VII, the ADA, and for
retaliation against Defendant MHM.2 Plaintiff has checked boxes indicating she was

2. During my training period with the employer, the trainer Ashley McCasland
only spoke to Caucasians. She gave less training time to the people of other races
and colors and didn’t train me on some topics at all. When I complained about the
discrimination to my Supervisors Tiffany Kunz, Elizabeth Slais, Human Resources,
and the Chief Executive Operator’s Secretary, I was suspended without pay starting
on or about January 27, 2023. The Respondent also failed to reasonably
accommodate my disability. I was told by Human Resources that I needed to find
a new job within the company by May 15, 2023, or I would be terminated.
3. I believe I was denied a reasonable accommodation for my disability in
violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1994, as amended. I
believe I was subject to different terms and conditions of employment than those
similarly situated than I, suspended, laid off, denied a reasonable accommodation,
and terminated in retaliation for opposing discrimination, in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
ECF No. 1-2.
2 As explained in Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s original Complaint, “Mercy Hospital”
was not Plaintiff’s employer, nor is there a legal entity known as “Mercy Hospital.” Plaintiff’s
discriminated against on the basis of her race, national origin, color, and disability. She also
states that “they did not like for me to voice my concerns[,] so they made sure I was out the door
on purpose [and] told lies to do so.” Id. at 4. In the body of her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that she was hired after a phone interview with “Lisa” as a patient care assistant (“PCA”)

working in the women’s health department at Mercy Hospital St. Louis. She states that she
informed Lisa that she was disabled and would “need to space out [her] days.” Id. at 6. She then
alleges that during her training herself and the other people of color were “not treated the same”
as white trainees. She further alleges that the “safety teacher” was rude to non-white students.
Plaintiff generally alleges that she told “Tiffany” about her experiences at the training
session, and then Tiffany “used [her] disability to demote [her] out of the women’s health
department because [she] spoke up.” Id. at 7–8. Plaintiff alleges that she told Tiffany about
having children in college in Puerto Rico and alleges that Tiffany “said oh in Puerto Rico in a
condescending way.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff then allegedly told Tiffany that she was hurting but
having fun in her work in the women’s health department, to which Tiffany responded that she

did not want Plaintiff to be in pain and assigned Plaintiff to a desk job and then planned for
Plaintiff to interview for a companion position. Plaintiff alleges that she then asked to instead be
assigned to work on the welcome desk at the women’s health department, but she was not
assigned to that role. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that she “was forced to sit at home from Jan[uary]
of 2023 to Feb[ruary] of 2023 with no work nor any pay.” Id. at 14.
Plaintiff then states that unnamed co-workers told her that white people do not have to
apply or go to interviews but were instead simply transferred to other departments while non-

employer was “MHM Support Services,” who is now the sole Defendant in this matter. ECF No.
17.
whites were told to apply for jobs and were set up for failure. Plaintiff alleges she had an
interview scheduled with the neurology department, but in the meantime conducted a phone
interview with the oncology department. During her interview with “Bren” from the oncology
department, Plaintiff relates that she told the interviewer that she was disabled and needed to

space out her days off and to be off on Fridays to take her mother to doctor’s appointments.
According to Plaintiff, Bren said this was all okay. Plaintiff alleges that HR contacted her a few
hours later to tell her that the oncology department wanted to hire her. Plaintiff says that she
accepted the job with the oncology department, and the HR department canceled her interview
with the neurology department.
Plaintiff next alleges that she began work for the oncology department in February 2023.
She alleges that co-workers told her she was doing a great job, but then she started receiving
harassing emails from Lynn Finer. Plaintiff alleges that Bren then began scheduling her to work
back-to-back days and for shifts on Fridays. Plaintiff then says that she asked for
accommodations for her disability in an attempt to save her job.

She alleges that she was given a phone when she started in the oncology department, but
the phone did not work so she had to walk to each nurse to inform them if something was wrong
with a patient. Plaintiff then alleges that an unnamed co-worker told her that she overheard that
the department planned to train Plaintiff and then fire her. Plaintiff then alleges that she “was
lied on by the LPN in the oncology department.” Id. at 24. As a result, Plaintiff was put on
unpaid leave starting on April 1, 2023, until she was officially terminated on May 16, 2023.
Plaintiff alleges she was not given accommodations for her disability but does not specify
what accommodations she requested. Plaintiff also alleges that she asked Defendant’s corporate
office to take Lynn Finer off of her case because Ms. Finer was “trying to set [her] up to fail and
trying to get [her] out of Mercy.” Id. at 26. Plaintiff alleges that the corporate office told her that
Ms. Finer would no longer be involved with Plaintiff’s file, but that never happened.
Plaintiff states that she applied for unemployment on or about April 16, 2023, because
she had been unable to find another position with MHM. Plaintiff then makes several allegations

about an April or May 2023 interview with “Renee” in the surgery department, who Plaintiff
believes is racist for asking Plaintiff if she was on drugs and for asking Plaintiff why she had
been out of work. Plaintiff alleges that as she was leaving the interview with Renee, that Renee
stated “Oh my god those people.” Id. at 28.
Plaintiff alleges that at some point she shadowed a white woman named Rachel who told
Plaintiff that she too had fibromyalgia and that is how she got the job. Rachel also allegedly told
Plaintiff that she did not have to apply for the job. Plaintiff states that she later called HR to tell
them about how she was mistreated by Renee and that Rachel also had fibromyalgia and was
white.
Plaintiff states that on May 16, 2023, Lynn Finer sent her an email stating that Plaintiff

had been terminated from her employment with MHM. Plaintiff has attached a Right to Sue
letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (ECF No. 25-1 at 1–2)
and thirty (30) pages of emails that she states corroborate her experiences of unsuccessfully
trying to find another position at MHM before being terminated. Plaintiff requests $750,000 in
damages and “to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else.” ECF No. 25 at 33.
On November 12, 2024, MHM filed the instant motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) and
memorandum of law in support (ECF No. 27). MHM argues that the entirety of Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10(b) because Plaintiff has failed to state her claims in numbered paragraphs or to
group her allegations according to the claims that they support. MHM contends that this failure
on Plaintiff’s part has made it impossible to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, and that
if Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is not dismissed that Plaintiff be ordered to provide a more
definite statement of her claims in numbered paragraphs and grouped according to claims.

MHM further argues that Plaintiff’s ADA claims and failure to accommodate claims
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
because Plaintiff has failed to allege that she faced adverse employment action because MHM
knew of her alleged disability or perceived her as disabled. Additionally, MHM avers that
Plaintiff’s Title VII claims for race/color discrimination and hostile work
environment/harassment claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiff failed
to raise such claims in her Charge of Discrimination. For this reason, MHM requests that these
claims be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Notably, MHM has not argued that Plaintiff’s claim for retaliatory discharge under Title

VII should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Instead, MHM argues that Plaintiff’s entire
Amended Complaint should be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to set out her allegations in
numbered paragraphs grouped according to claims as is required by Rule 10(b).
In her response, Plaintiff states that she does not feel that the case should be dismissed,
but she does not cite to any legal authority in support of her position. Instead, Plaintiff provides
notes summarizing some of her attached exhibits. She then contends that she did raise race,
color, and hostile work environment/harassment claims in her original complaint with the EEOC,
but she does not point to any evidence in support. She further states that the “Human Rights
Department” and the EEOC “deemed the hospital to have violated [her] civil rights” by giving
her the Right to Sue letter. Plaintiff makes several other statements regarding how her claim was
handled by the EEOC and how a previous mediation Plaintiff and MHM was conducted, but
these newly raised allegations are not part of her Amended Complaint and therefore the Court
cannot consider them in deciding this motion to dismiss.

MHM, in its reply, argues that the case should be dismissed in its entirety for the reasons
raised in its motion. MHM also points out that, in her response, Plaintiff admits to not
complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). MHM then briefly restates the
arguments it raised in its motion.
Legal Standard
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of
the complaint. A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim when it does not plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Pleadings must include sufficient factual information to provide
notice of the grounds on which the claims rest and must “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Id. at 555; see also Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549
(8th Cir. 2008). This obligation requires a plaintiff to plead “more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555. A complaint “must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the
material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” Id. at 562
(citation omitted). When considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all factual
allegations contained in the complaint and reviews the complaint to determine whether its
allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 555–56; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Discussion
A. ADA Claims
“The ADA bars private employers from discriminating against a qualified individual on
the basis of disability.” Faidley v. UPS, Inc., 889 F.3d 933, 940 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, “an
employee must show that she (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) is a qualified
individual under the ADA, and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of her
disability.” Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209, 1216 (8th Cir. 2013). To establish a disability, the
plaintiff must show a physical or mental impairment substantially limiting a major life activity, a
record of such impairment, or that the claimant is regarded as having such impairment. 42
U.S.C. § 12102(1); Duty v. Norton-Alcoa Proppants, 293 F.3d 481, 490–91 (8th Cir. 2002).
Under the ADA, prohibited discrimination includes intentional discrimination against a qualified
individual because of her disability, which can be shown by evidence of disparate treatment or
other proof based on the specific facts of the case. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)–(b)(1); Young v.

Warner-Jenkinson Co., 152 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint has failed to rectify the issues the Court previously noted
as the reasons it dismissed her ADA claim as raised in the original Complaint. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint mentions a specific alleged disability, fibromyalgia, only twice: once in the
context of Plaintiff’s discussion with a co-worker who Plaintiff claims also had fibromyalgia and
once in a discussion with Renee who was allegedly a manager of the surgery department for
MHM. Plaintiff again fails to raise any allegations that she faced an adverse employment action
because Defendant knew of her disability or because she was perceived as disabled. To the
contrary, Plaintiff only alleges that she faced any adverse employment action because she spoke
up about allegedly race-based discrimination against other trainees during her employment
training. Plaintiff does not allege that her fibromyalgia impairs a major life activity or how it
allegedly affected her work besides general statements that she needed to have her workdays
“spaced out.” Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, as the Court must do when deciding a motion

to dismiss, Plaintiff’s claims fail to allege facts sufficient to support a claim for discrimination
under the ADA. The Court will therefore dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim.
B. Title VII Claims of Discrimination on the Basis of Race, Color, and National
Origin
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employee to discriminate against an individual because
of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. To state a claim under
Title VII, a plaintiff must show either direct evidence of discrimination or evidence that is
sufficient to create an inference of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting
framework. Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 684 F.3d 711, 716 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
To properly support a racial discrimination claim under Title VII, plaintiff must allege that she is
a member of a protected class, she was meeting the employer’s legitimate job expectations, she
suffered an adverse employment action, and was treated differently than similarly situated
employees who were not members of her protected class. Jackman v. Fifth Jud. Dist. Dep’t. of
Corr. Servs., 728 F.3d 800, 804 (8th Cir. 2013). Thus, not only must the plaintiff articulate in her
complaint what her race and color is, how she was racially discriminated against, and how she
believes she was meeting the employer’s legitimate job expectations, but she must also articulate

how she believes she was treated differently from those who were not of her same race (or color)
but were not terminated or disciplined for acting similarly. Id.
Plaintiff has again failed to articulate her race or color. She does not allege that she
suffered discrimination based on the color of her skin or because of her race. While she alleged
that people of color were treated differently compared to white trainees during her training with
MHM, she does not allege that she was personally treated differently because of her race or
color. She states a few times in her Amended Complaint that white employees of MHM were not
required to apply for their jobs or to be interviewed for their positions. But these allegations

alone cannot support a claim under Title VII because Plaintiff has not alleged that she was
discriminated against on the basis of her race or color, nor has she alleged that she was meeting
her employer’s legitimate job expectations.
Arguably, she has asserted that she is Puerto Rican and thus is a member of a protected
class based on her national original. She alleges through conclusory allegations that she was
treated differently because she was Puerto Rican. But again, Plaintiff has not alleged that she
was meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations, which means that she cannot maintain a
Title VII claim for alleged discrimination on the basis of her national origin.
More problematic however is that Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination does not state that
she is raising a race, color, or national origin discrimination claim under Title VII. As the Court

has already discussed regarding her original Complaint, Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination
couches her claims related to Title VII as a consequence of her opposition to alleged racial
discrimination she observed during her training. ECF No. 1-2 (“I believe I was subject to
different terms and conditions of employment than those similarly situated than I, suspended,
laid off, denied a reasonable accommodation, and terminated in retaliation for opposing
discrimination, in violation of Title VII . . . .”) (emphasis added). As the Court previously stated,
Plaintiff cannot pursue Title VII claims in federal court until she has raised such claims as part of
her Charge of Discrimination.3 See Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1025
(8th Cir. 2004) (a plaintiff may only pursue claims in her complaint that are “like or reasonably
related to” claims in the Charge of Discrimination). Similarly, Plaintiff’s claims based on a
theory of hostile work environment/harassment or discrimination in the terms or conditions of

her employment are not appropriately raised before the Court as they too were not raised in
Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination. Therefore, these claims will be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
C. Title VII Retaliation Claim
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must establish
that: (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment
action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action. Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 530 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has alleged
that she complained that a trainer acted in a racially discriminatory manner during her training
course. Plaintiff further alleges that, as a result of complaining about the discriminatory

behavior, she was demoted and placed on unpaid leave. Taken as true, these allegations are
sufficient for Plaintiff to continue to pursue her retaliation claim under Title VII.
D. Plaintiff’s Failure to Follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10

3 The court also notes that the Right to Sue Letter Plaintiff received from the EEOC is not
an endorsement of Plaintiff’s claims as she argues in her response. See ECF No. 29 at 10 (“I feel
if it was good enough for the Human Rights Department and EEOC to take the case and
investigate it in which they deemed the hospital to have violated my civil rights and gave me my
right to sue letter . . . then I should have a fair right to have my voice heard in court.”) As the
Supreme Court has stated, “when the EEOC receives a charge, in contrast to agencies like the
National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, it does not adjudicate
the claim.” Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 587 U.S. 541, 544 (2019) (cleaned up). Plaintiff is
incorrect to state that the EEOC deemed MHM to have violated her civil rights. Whether MHM
violated Plaintiff’s civil rights is still in issue and is to be decided by this Court in this case.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b): “A party must state its claims . . . in
numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. . . . If
doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . .
must be stated in a separate count or defense.” Therefore, Plaintiff is required to have set forth

her claims by numbered paragraphs but has failed to do so. Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v.
Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In general, pro se representation does not
excuse a party from complying with a court’s orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.”) (citations omitted). Plaintiff admits to not setting out her allegations in numbered
paragraphs. Plaintiff has also failed to state her separate claims in separate counts. Because of
this, Plaintiff’s claims are difficult to discern, and MHM claims that it is unable to meaningfully
respond to the Amended Complaint.
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as currently pleaded is hard to
follow and does not clearly distinguish which allegations relate to which of her claims, making it
difficult or impossible for MHM to meaningfully respond. Even so, Plaintiff appears to have

alleged sufficient facts supporting a claim for retaliation under Title VII, as discussed above.
The Court will therefore deny MHM’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliation count based on
her failure to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). But the Court will grant MHM’s
request in the alternative and will direct Plaintiff to refile her complaint, setting out each
allegation in a numbered paragraph and clarifying which allegations support which of her claims.
Plaintiff will be given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to file a Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff can again use the Court’s Employment Discrimination Complaint
form. In the section that asks for Plaintiff to state the essential facts of her claim, Plaintiff shall
briefly and clearly set out her allegations in numbered paragraphs. Each numbered paragraph
should be limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant MHM Support Service’s motion to dismiss
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ECF No. 26.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims for race and color discrimination,
discrimination in terms and conditions of her employment, and harassment/hostile work
environment brought under Title VII are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s disability discrimination and failure to
accommodate claims brought under the ADA are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s alternative request for a more definite
statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed
to file within thirty (30) days from the date of this order a second amended complaint that sets
out her claims in numbered paragraphs and otherwise conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules.
Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action without
further notice.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Order.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2025. LA.
JO .ROSS
UN"FED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10785856. Public record. Not legal advice.