Opinion
MDL NO. 1407
May 7, 2004
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CMO NOS 15 AND 15A
BEFORE the court are defendants' proposed orders seeking to dismiss various plaintiffs' claims with prejudice against all defendants for failure to file timely individual complaints as required by Case Management Order ("CMO") no, 15. Defendants also request dismissal of a number of multiple plaintiff complaints pursuant to CMO No. 15A.
I. BACKGROUND
A. CMO Nos, 15 and 15A
Many cases transferred into Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") 1407 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation were brought by groups of plaintiffs against groups of defendants. Plaintiffs in these multiple plaintiff cases failed to state with specificity which products each plaintiff allegedly ingested, and therefore failed to identify which manufacturers allegedly caused which plaintiff's injuries. On May 29, 2003, the court entered CMO No. 15, Severance of Multiple Plaintiff Cases, and ruled that these multiple plaintiff cases did not meet the threshold standard, for permissive joinder under Fed. r, civ, P. 20(a), CMO No. 15* at 1-2. CMO No. 15, therefore, directed plaintiffs in any multiple plaintiff cases pending in MDL 1407 as of May 29, 2003, excluding those cases alleging loss of consortium on behalf of a spouse/ to file and serve new individual (or "severed") Complaints within 30 days of entry of the order. CMO No. 15, at 2, CMO No. 15 also provided that in cases docketed in MDL 1407 after entry of CMO No. 15, plaintiffs must file and serve new, individual complaints within 30 days of the date of docketing in MDL 1407. CMO No. 15, at 3.
CMO No. ISA was entered on August 26, 2003, and provides that "the original multiple plaintiff Complaints (set forth in Exhibit A attached) shall be dismissed with prejudice as of the effective date of this Order, which includes any plaintiffs for whom a timely filed individual severed Complaint was not filed." CMO No. 15A, at ¶ 3, An Order of Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to CMO 15 and 15A dismissed the original multiple plaintiff complaints listed in Exhibit A to that order. Any additional multiple plaintiff complaints filed in MDL 1407 are subject to dismissal pursuant to CMO No. 15A as soon as the applicable deadline for filing severed complaints has passed. CMO No. ISA, at ¶ 3.
The court denies the untimely motion for reconsideration of this order of dismissal. See Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal Pursuant to CMO 15 and CMO 15A, filed on December 8, 2003.
B. Defendants' Proposed Orders
In the fall of 2003, defendants informed the court that some plaintiffs who had failed to comply with CMO Ho. 15 were nevertheless pressing defendants for discovery. The court issued an order on October 30, 2003, reiterating plaintiffs' obligations pursuant to CMO Nos. 15 and 15A, The court directed defendants to submit a proposed order of dismissal listing all cases in which plaintiffs failed to comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A — Defendants submitted the two proposed orders which are at issue here.
The initial Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice For Cases in Which Plaintiffs Filed Untimely or No Individual Complaints Under CMOs 15 and 15A, was filed on November 7, 2003 (the "First Proposed Order"). The First Proposed Order seeks dismissal of the claims of plaintiffs whose cases were pending in MDL 1407 at the time of entry of CMO No, 15. The Second Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice For Cases in which Plaintiffs Filed Untimely or No Individual Complaints Under CMOS 15 and 15A ("Second Proposed Order") was filed on December 8, 2003, and lists plaintiffs whose severed complaints were due at various points after June 30, 2003, and who failed to comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A, The Second Proposed Order also seeks dismissal of a number of multiple plaintiff cases not yet dismissed as contemplated by CMO No. 15A.
The court received and considered a considerable number of briefs from plaintiffs who opposed inclusion in defendants' proposed orders, and also considered defendants' reply briefs in support of the proposed orders. Given the volume of plaintiff oppositions, the court will address the plaintiffs' arguments. Having considered the pleadings, and being fully advised, the court finds and rules as follows:
II. DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Court Orders
In determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order, a district court must consider five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). In the case of plaintiffs who failed to comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A, the court is of the opinion that absent special circumstances, dismissal is warranted.
The public's interest in the expeditious resolution of litigation and the court's need to manage its docket clearly weigh in favor of dismissal. The plaintiffs in multiple plaintiff cases do not state with specificity which products they allegedly ingested, nor do they identify the manufacturers who allegedly caused their injuries. Thus, the practical effect of a failure on the part of these plaintiffs to file severed complaints in a timely fashion is that cases have been prevented from moving forward. Such a lack of diligence does not serve the public interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, nor does it assist the court in managing its docket, Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th cir. 1999). The failure of plaintiffs to comply with CMO Nos, 15 and 15A has diverted the court's time and resources. Additionally, without the information contained in the severed complaints, defendants are prejudiced, because their ability to defend these cases is seriously compromised. Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43,
While there is a preference that cases be disposed of on the merits, here, given the failure of some of these plaintiffs to comply with cmo Nos. 15 and 15A, it is impossible to dispose of these cases on that basis. See, e.g., In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 433 (9th Cir 1996) ("policy [of disposing cases on their merits] lends little support to appellants, whose total refusal to provide discovery obstructed resolution of their claims on the merits."). These plaintiffs' unwillingness to file severed complaints, or their serious delay in so doing, is not excusable. Dismissal is warranted, absent a convincing reason for failure to comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A. Therefore, the cases of the plaintiffs listed on Appendix A to this Order are dismissed, with prejudice, against all defendants. CMO No. 15A provides that "after all applicable deadlines set forth in CMO 15 have elapsed, defendant may move for the dismissal of the original multi-plaintiff complaint [.]" CMO No. 15A, at ¶ 3. Defendants Seek dismissal of various multiple plaintiff complaints on this basis. The multiple plaintiff complaints listed on Appendix B to this Order are dismissed pursuant to cmo No. 15A.
In Section II(B), below, the court addresses the specific arguments made by plaintiffs opposing dismissal pursuant to CMO Nos. 15 and 15a.
Delaco, successor to Thompson Medical Company, filed a petition for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York on February 12, 2004. Although litigation against Delaco. is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), the court takes notice of the May 5, 2004 Order under 11 u.s.C. § 362(d) and F.R.Bankr.P. 4001 Modifying Automatic Stay Nunc Pro Tunc to Allow Dismissal of Litigation ("Order Modifying Stay"), by United States Bankruptcy Judge Cornelius Blackshear. The Order Modifying Stay allows for the entry of this order of dismissal in cases involving Delaco. See Order Modifying Stay at 2, ¶ 1 and Exhibit B.
B. Plaintiff Oppositions
1. Plaintiffs who argue that their severed complaints were timely filed
First, a group of seven plaintiffs argue that their severed complaints were in fact timely filed, and that they were wrongly included on defendants' proposed orders, See Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Opposition to Defendants' (Second.) Proposed Order of Dismissal, filed 12-17-03, These plaintiffs' severed complaints were due November 14, 2003. There does not appear to be any dispute that the same were timely served by mail on that date. See Fed.R. Civ, P. 5(b)(2)(B) (providing that "[s]ervice by mail is complete on mailing."). Plaintiffs claim that their complaints also were timely filed on November 17, 2003, pursuant to Fed. R, Civ. P. 6(e), which plaintiffs allege added three extra days to serve and file the severed complaints. Likewise, 19 other plaintiffs filed motions for reconsideration asserting that pursuant to Fed.R. Civ, P. 6(e), their severed complaints, due on July 7, 2003, but filed on July 10, 2003, were timely filed. See Plaintiff's Motions to Reconsider, filed 11-13-03. The court deems the severed complaints of these plaintiffs to have been timely filed.
This opposition brief was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Annie L. Brown; Lisa Burchfield; Ollie M. Harper; Patricia Lovejoy; Lisa Y. Owens; Betty Powell; and Carolyn Sangster.
These motions were filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Oliver Hall; Eleanor Cunningham; Carrie Sails; Sara Williams; Sue Daniel; Samuel webb; Arthur McKinney; Clyde Ware; Annie Peterson; Johnnie Hill; Jack Spivey; Leslie Dansby; Girish Patkar, — Alan Stockdale; John Pezza; Delores Rosebud; Alfonso Ross; Donald Hovey; and Stacey Young.
2. Plaintiffs who argue that a very minimal delay is excusable
A group of 10 plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that their severed complaints, which were filed one day after the deadline, should he deemed timely filed. See Motion to Reconsider this Count's Decision to Sign the Second Proposed Order of Dismissal, filed December 9, 2003. Another group of plaintiffs seeks the same relief on the grounds that a Federal Express delay caused their severed complaints to arrive one day late. See Motion Regarding Order Interpreting Case Management Order 15, filed November 6, 2003. The court finds that such inconsequential delays did not prejudice defendants, and, therefore, dismissal of these cases is unwarranted.
This motion was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Linda Archer, — Johnnie Banks; Mackie Boykin; Jannie Clark; Jimmle Dampier; Louise Gamble; Clementine Jackson; Georgia. Jones; Raymond Sharpe; and Aaron Smith.
This motion was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Irene Adams; Linda Adams; Melissa Ardoin; Angela Ashley; Colin Barrilleaux, Carolyn Bourgeois; Peggy Bourgeois; Joyce Bowden; Dorothy Bradley; Rhoenisa Brock; Suze Buras; James Carter; Alton Chalk; Deborah Charlet; Jeffrey Cheramie; Ivystien Cousin; Janna Craig; Emma Richardson for Elnora Davis; Delores DiMattia; Sherry Doucet; Mable Claiborne; James L. Davis; Georgiana Duplessis, — Clara. Earl; Nellie Emery; Janie Felder obo Jhibria Felder; Rencer Fortenberry; Adeline Foster; Eunice Gambino; Iris Gallano; Cathy George; Daniel Gisevius; Carol Goodlett; Melvin Guerra; Norris Falgout; David Harris; Amon Hebert; Elvira Henry; Lillie Hernandez; Carol Hickman; Elaine Jackson obo Rachael Griffin; Laura Mason-Jackson; Gloria Jennings; Christina Johnson; Gloria Johnson; Pearl Johnson,-Kenneth Johnson obo Robert Johnson; Rebecca Jones; Zerlee Jones; Brenda Keller; Judith Kellum; Lillian Keys; Adrienne Lancelin; Maria Lazo; Patricia LeCompte; Howard Lee; Theresa Lomax; Anita Maddox; Florence Mang obo Henry Mang; Joseph Marion; Ronald Marretta; Addie Martin; Jocelyn Maxwell; Debra Mayer; Edna McDaniel; Alice McKenzie; Stanley McWilliams; Sandra Miley; Jessie Means; Jessie Means obo Myrtle Means; Ida Miller; Duffie Mills; Alphonse Moore; Leon Moore; Sandra Moore; Larry Parker; Vicelea, Percy; Billie Reinninger; Carolyn Ross; Debra Sakowski; Evert Probst; Sidney Scott; Doris Spurlock; Catherine Stechman; Connie Stevens; Louis Stevens; Brenda Tate; Ida Triplett; Carolyn Underwood; Paula Williams; Walter Wright; Charlotte Young; and Shirley Zeno.
3. Plaintiffs who argue that their obligation to comply with CMO nos. 15 and 15A was stayed while the court considered their motion to reconsider CMO Ho. 15.
Certain plaintiffs waited to file their severed complaints until 30 days after this court denied their motion to reconsider CMO No. 15. These plaintiffs argue that their obligation to comply with CMO No. 15 was stayed until the court ruled on their motion. See Motion to Reconsider This Court's Decision to Sign the Proposed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on November 14, 2003.
This motion was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Florence Ingram; Reginald Johnson; Lacie Jones; Sarah Lewis; Brady Needham; Viola Oliver; Bessie Steele; Nathaniel Black; Winnie Blaylock; William Boone; Eddie Bullock; Lorilla Hill; Evelyn Murry obo Bennett Murry; Zula Patterson; Bobbie Quinn; Janice White obo Phillip White; and Jackie Young.
The court requested a response from defendants, who note that plaintiffs did not file a motion to reconsider CMO 15 until one day before their severed complaints were due, and posit that the motion for reconsideration was simply an effort to circumvent CMO 15. The court finds that plaintiffs' belief that their obligation to comply with CMO No. 15 was stayed until the court ruled on their motion for reconsideration was at least arguably reasonable. Therefore, dismissal of these cases is unwarranted.
However, the court warns plaintiffs that such self-designed extensions of the court's schedules will not be tolerated in the future.
4. Plaintiffs who allege that their failure to comply with CMO Has. 15 and 15A was due to counsel error
A group of plaintiffs asks to be excused for filing severed complaints a month and a half late. These plaintiffs filed motions to reconsider the dismissal of their severed complaints on the grounds that the late filing was "due only to [plaintiffs'] counsel's oversight and mistake[.]"see Plaintiffs' Motions to Reconsider the Dismissal of Amended CMO 15 Complaint, filed November 12, 2003. Defendant Bayer opposed most of plaintiffs' motions, arguing that the severed complaints, which were due on June 30, 2003, but were not filed until August 19, 2003, should be dismissed. See Defendant Bayer Corporation's Oppositions to Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Amended Complaint Filed Pursuant to CMO 15, filed December 1, 2003. The court received another motion on behalf of two plaintiffs who likewise blame their failure to comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A on oversight of counsel. See Motion of Plaintiffs Hannah Wimberly and Charles Rodgers for Leave to File Amended Complaints Pursuant to CMO 15 Out of Time, filed December 11, 2003. The court considered opposition from two defendants, and plaintiffs' replies in the Wimberly and Rodgers matters. See Defendant Bayer Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaints Pursuant to CMO 15 Out of Time, filed January 7, 2004; Defendant SmithKlineBeecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline's Opposition to Plaintiff Wimberly's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, filed January 14, 2004; Rebuttal of Plaintiffs Hannah Wimberly and Charles Rodgers in Support of Their Motion For Leave to File Amended Complaints Out of Time, filed January 8, 2004; and Rebuttal of Plaintiff Hannah Wimberly in Support of Her Motion For Leave to File Amended Complaint Pursuant to CMO 15 Out of Time, filed January 16, 2004.
These motions to reconsider were filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Elnora Jefferson; Raymond Stewart; James Green, Jr.; Calvin McGriggs; Mary Thompson; Shirley Arrington; Doris Gean Cooper; Roosevelt Harris; Edith and Russell McCook; Barbara and Lorenzo walker; and Daffney and Jay Miller.
The claims of these plaintiffs are dismissed. Oversight of counsel is not a sufficient excuse for a delay in complying with court orders.See, e.g., Engelson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (1992) (holding that an attorney's mistake did not excuse a party's failure to file within the applicable statute of limitations). It is the responsibility of all attorneys to keep track of deadlines relevant to their clients' cases.
5. Plaintiffs who allege the existence of agreements with defendants permitting late compliance
A group of plaintiffs claim to have had agreements with defendants allowing them to file their severed complaints late. These plaintiffs indicate that they sent a letter to counsel for defendants seeking extra time, and informing defendants that they should respond if they objected to the extensions sought. Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive any objections, and that some defense attorneys agreed by telephone to the extensions sought. See Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Second [Proposed] Order of Dismissal with Prejudice for Cases in Which Plaintiffs Filed Untimely or no individual Complaints Under CMOs 15 and 15A, filed December 16, 2003. These plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Accept Filing of Individual Complaints in Above-Specified Related Actions. See Motion to Accept Filing of Individual Complaints in Above-Specified Related Actions, filed October 17, 2003, Defendants filed a reply in which they contend that plaintiffs' counsel failed to secure the extensions as alleged. See Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Second [Proposed] Order of Dismissal with Prejudice for Cases in Which Plaintiffs Filed untimely or No Individual Complaints Under CMOs 15 and 15A, filed January 2, 2004.
This opposition and motion were filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs; Bridgett Arrington; Emma Lee Bailey; Lonnie Bivens; Theodore Fleming; Johnny Fulcher; Eta Mae Gooden; Laurie Goodin; Joe Knight obo Linda Knight; Virginia Madison; Remona Mitchell; Percy Pennington; Dianne Rushing; Perry Sansing; Kenneth Smith; Alma Watkins; and Emma Watson obo Benita.
Another group of plaintiffs makes a vague claim that they had agreements with defendants relieving them of many obligations pursuant to various case management orders. They also argue that the issue of compliance with CMO No, 15 is moot since they filed their severed complaints prior to the filing of defendants' proposed orders, and that dismissal is too harsh a remedy for the late filing of severed complaints. Finally, these plaintiffs allege a violation of their due process rights based on defendants' failure to file a formal motion to dismiss their cases pursuant to cmo no, 15. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Order of Dismissal for Failure to Comply with CMO 15, filed November 13, 2003.
This opposition was filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Leslie Ackel; Dianne Albert; Reginald Badon; Stephen Barquet; David Bell; Kim Boutte; Pearl Briscoe; Karen Brown; Melinda Brown; Raymond Carto; Jean Castille; Faith Chaussy; Eddison Collins; Edward Comeaux; Stemmie Cooper; Monica Cravinas; Joan Derbigny; Catherine Benjamin; Joyce Ashton; Betty Everidge; Yvette Fox; Creato Gordon; John Green; Lula Hayes; Lisa Henderson; shirley Howard; Rosa Jackson; Karen James; Hilda Johnson; Kathleen Jones; George Kenny; Janice King; Joanne King; Jerry Bell; Gus Bennett; Brian Holder; Lawrence P. Jackson; Melvin Joseph; Roline Keller; Merrie Lafargue; James McFarland; Virginia Railey; Eugene Wells; Tommy Williams; Hazel Wilson; Sydney Claire Woodall; Debra Simmons; Francis Laporte; Lula Lewis; Edith Lindsey; Bobby Lonzo; Ronald Mack; Sandra Mailhes; Rodney Mayeaux; Rose McCrary; Mary McGary; Evangeline McGee; Anne Monley; Khadihah Muhammed; Eddison Nicholas; Herman Pembrook; Carol Rankins; Cassandra Richardson; Reginald Sanders; Tina Simmons; Ella Mae Spurlock; Carolyn Taylor; Wendell Taylor; Joseph Thomas; Sheri Thompson; Cynthia Touissant; Whitney Tripps; Dorothy Warren; Jackie White; Franklin Whitney Rosa Rogers obo Mary Rogers; Harold Winters; White-Shadawn obo Brenda White; Mae Johnson obo Helen Martin; and Aline Ricks obo Estelle Robertson.
Defendant Wyeth filed a reply on behalf of all defendants, flatly denying that defendants were party to any agreements with plaintiffs that would have relieved plaintiffs of their obligation to file timely CMO Ho. 15 severed complaints, and opposing plaintiffs' additional arguments.See Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Order of Dismissal for Failure to Comply with CMO 15, filed December 1, 2003.
The court finds that these plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of agreements allowing them to file late severed complaints. Furthermore the mere fact that plaintiffs may have filed and served severed complaints prior to the filing of defendants' proposed orders does not render the issue of compliance with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A moot, as it does not alleviate the prejudice to defendants. Plaintiffs' contention of a violation of due process is frivolous. Therefore, the claims of these plaintiffs alleging the existence of agreements with counsel permitting late compliance are dismissed.
6. Plaintiffs who argue that they did not comply with CMO Nos. 15 and 15A out of concern that filing severed complaints would jeopardize motions for remand to state court
A group of 5 plaintiffs have informed the court that they were reluctant to file severed complaints out of a concern that filing such complaints would waive their arguments made in pending motions for remand to state court that this court lacks jurisdiction over their cases.See Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief From and in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Orders of Dismissal with Prejudice for Cases in Which Plaintiffs Filed Untimely or No individual Complaints Under CMOS 15 and 15A, dated January 13, 2004; Motions for Reconsideration dated November 17, 2003; and letter dated October 16, 2003. These plaintiffs contend that they attempted to reach agreements with defendants that they would file severed complaints when and if the court denied their pending motions to remand, but defendants refused to enter into such agreements. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed severed complaints approximately 11 days late. The court rules that because plaintiffs' concerns were reasonable, and the delay relatively brief, dismissal of plaintiffs' cases is unwarranted.
The opposition, motions for reconsideration and letter were filed on behalf of the following plaintiffs: Anderson Washington; Samuel Hawkins; Sherry Gaines, — Byron Mabry; and Cherrice Jamison.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the cases listed in Appendices A and B are DISMISSED with prejudice against all defendants pursuant to CMO Nos. 15 and 15A.
Appendix A Individual Gases Dismissed Pursuant to CMO 15/15A
Ackel — Leslie C03-3690Albert — Dianne C03-3691
Archer — Linda o/b/o Juniker Pigron C03-3516
Arrington — Bridgette C03-3420
Arrington — Shirley C03-3443
Ashton — Joyee C03-309S
Badon — Reginald C03-3693
Bailey — Emma CG3-2691
Barquet — Stephen C03-3702
Bell — David C03-3096
Bell — Jerry C03-3076
Benjamin — Catherine C03-3477
Bentiett — Gus, Sr. C03-3073
Bivins — Lonnie C03-3912
Black — Nathaniel C03-2602
Blaylock — Winnie C03-2583
Bolian — Carol C03-3095
Boone — William C03-2584
Boutte — Kim C03-3692
Briscoe — Pearl C03-3694
Brown — Karen C03-3693
Bullock — Eddie C03-2585
Carlo — Raymond C03-3698
Castille — Jerlean C03-3699
Chaussy — Faith C03-3700
Collins — Eddison C03-3704
Comeaux — Edward C03-3097
Cooper — Doris Gean C03-3481
Cravinas — Monica C03-3706
Derbigny — Joan C03-3703
Doherty — Margaret o/b/o Louis C03-3092 Doherty
Everidge — Betty C03-3361
Fleming — Theodore C03-2696
Fox — Yvette C03-3714
Fulcher — Johnny C03-2701
Gooden — Eta Mae C03-27G4
Goodin — Laurie C03-3266
Gordon — Creato C03-3709
Green — John C03-3710
Green — James, Jr. C03-3442
Harris — Roosevelt C03-3483
Hayes — Lula C03-3712
Henderson — Lisa C03-3713
Hill — Lorilla C03-2586
Holder — Brian C03-3066
Howard — Shirley C03-3362
Ingram — Florence C03-2604
Jackson — Lawrence P. C03-3063
Jackson — Rosa C03-3093
James — Karen C03-3091
Jefferson — Elnora C03-3444
Johnson — Christina C03-2148
Johnson — Gloria C03-1742
Johnson — Hilda C03-3363
Johnson — Mae o/b/o Helen Martin C03-3084
Johnson — Reginald C03-2600
Jones — Kathleen C03-3364
Jones — Lacie C03-2607
Joseph — Melvin C03-3064
Keller — Roline C03-3074
Kenny — George C03-3708
King — Janice C03-3365
King — Joanne C03-3366
Knight — Joe o/b/o Linda Knight C03-2703
Lafargue-Merrie C03-306S
Laporte — Frances C03-3085
Lewis — Lula C03-3357
Lewis — Sarah C03-2608
Lindsey-Edith C03-3358
Lonzo — Bobby C03-3359
Mack — Ronald C03-3360
Madison — Virginia C03-2695
Mailhes — Sandra C03-3087
Maury — Oleta o/b/o Gwendolyn Reed C03-3456
Mayeaux — Rodney Sr. C03-3715
McCook — Edith C03-3455
McCrary — Rose C03-3716
McFarland — James C03-3065
McGary — Mary C03-3718
McGee — Evangeline C03-3719
McGriggs — Calvin C03-342S
Miller — Daffney C03-3480
Mitchell — Remona C03-3457
Monley — Anne C03-3720
Muhammad — Khadijah C03-3083
Murry — Evelyn o/b/o Bennett C03-2587
Needham-Brady C03-2599
Nicholas — Eddison C03-3721
Patterson — Zula C03-2589
Pembrook — Herman C03-3722
Pennington — Percy C03-0851
Quinn — Bobbie C03-2580
Railey — Virginia C03-3062
Rankins — Carol Ann. C03-3088
Richardson — Cassandra C03-3089
Ricks — Aline o/b/o Estelle Robertson C03-3077
Rogers — Rosa o/b/o Mary Rogers C03-3081
Rushing — Dianne C03-2700
Sanders — Reginald C03-3354
Sansing — Peggy o/b/o John Sansing C03-3424
Simmons — Debra C03-3075
Simmons — Tina C03-3344
Smith — Kenneth C03-3268
Spurlock — Ella Mae C03-3345
Steele — Bessie C03-2601
Stewart — Raymond C03-3441
Taylor — Carolyn C03-3351
Taylor — Wendell C03-3343
Thomas — Joseph C03-3342
Thompson — Mary C03-3440
Thompson — Sheri C03-3353
Toussaint — Cynthia C03-3347
Tripps — Whitney C03-3355
Walker — Barbara C03-3479
Warren — Dorothy C03-3348
Watkins — Alma C03-2698
Watson — Emma obo Benita Brown C03-2705
Wells — Eugene C03-3069
White — Jackie C03-3350
White — Phillip C03-2591
White — Shadawn o/b/o Brenda White C03-3071
Williams — Tommy C03-3067
Wilson — Hazel C03-3070
Wimberly — Franklin C03-3080
Winters — Harold C03-3352
Woodall — Sydney Claire C03-3072
Young — Jackie C03-2592
Appendix B Multi-Plaintiff Cases Dismissed Pursuant to CMO 15/15A
Aidt — Rhonda C03-2733Addison — Tawnyna C03-2713
Ainsworth — Catherine C03-2717
Bailey — Ozell C03-2719
Britton — Sandra C03-1101
Brooks — Mary C03-2854
Clark — Essie C03-2760
Clark — Jannie C03-2863
Cooper — Rose C03-3163
Davis — Kenneth C03-2742
Dunn — Nancy C03-1346
Dyson — Amos C03-2715
Goodman — Carrie C03-2492
Gray — James C03-2724
Green — Cleota C03-0603
Hicks — John C03-2486
Jones — Sherry C03-2725
Kincaid — Mattie C03-2714
May — A.C. C03-2483
Owens — Lisa C03-2716
Pegucs — Casey C03-2477
Reed — Isiah C03-2495
Robbs — Virginia C03-0601
Rogers — Margaret C03-2488
Sims — Quitman C03-2764
Smith — Rosie C03-2482
Sykes — Millie C03-2710
Thomas — Earline C03-2718
Thomas — Gwendolyn C03-0862
Tingle — Marcus C03-2478
Wheeler — Dorothy C03-2850
Wheeler — Tyree C03-2763
White — Ansleum C03-2489
Whittington — Lowell C03-2852