McMahan et el v. Whaleco, Inc.

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML
Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 110 PageID #:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AALANY MCMAHAN, ISAAC DWEK, LUKE SEAGRAVES, AVROHOM SHOR, ARIELLA SHOR, AND THE OTHER CLAIMANTS LISTED IN APPENDIX A,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-1590 (MKB)
Plaintiffs,
V.
WHALECO, INC., d/b/a TEMU,
Defendant.
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs Aalany McMahan, Isaac Dwek, Luke Seagraves, Avrohom Shor, Ariella Shor and the other Plaintiffs (listed in Appendix A to the Complaint and this Memorandum and Order) (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), commenced the above-captioned action on March 21, 2025, against Defendant Whaleco, Inc., doing business as Temu ("Temu"). (Compl. 11, Docket Entry No. 1; Appendix A, appended to Compl.) Plaintiffs seek an order to compel arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA") against Defendant, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 4, based on their arbitration demands previously filed. (Id. 11 1, 20.) In the prior arbitration demands filed before the AAA, Plaintiffs brought consumer protection claims against Temu under federal law including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act alleging false advertising, deceptive trade practices, and unlawful interception, collection and dissemination of Plaintiffs' personal and private
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
information.1 (Id. ¶¶ 3–5; see McMahan Informal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) Notice of Dispute,
annexed to Decl. of Michael Kind (“Kind Decl.”) as Ex. 2, Docket Entry No. 1-5.)
On August 18, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration
arguing that the Court is the proper venue for the dispute.2 For the reasons set forth below, the
Court (1) grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration with respect to the five Plaintiffs who
attended informal dispute resolution conferences; and (2) denies Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
arbitration for Plaintiffs listed in Appendix A and grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss with
respect to these Plaintiffs because they have not completed the informal dispute resolution
process.
I. Background
a. The parties
Plaintiffs are thousands of individuals who attempted to arbitrate individual consumer
protection claims against Defendant before the AAA. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 19; Appendix A.) In the
arbitration proceedings, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant “unlawfully intercepted, collected,
used, and disseminated consumers’ personal and private information” when Plaintiffs visited
Defendant’s website, used their mobile application, and subscribed to its marketing
communications. (Compl. ¶ 4.) “Temu is an online marketplace operated by the Chinese e-
1 Plaintiffs also alleged state law claims for violations of New York General Business
Law §§ 349, 350; breach of expressed and/or implied contract; breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; violations of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practice statutes; and
violations of state wiretapping statutes. (Compl. ¶ 5; Demand for Arb. dated Mar. 27, 2024,
annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 7, Docket Entry No. 1-5.)
2 (Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Arbitration (“Pls.’ Mem.”), appended to
Compl., Docket Entry No. 1-3; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 15;
Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. (“Def.’s Mem.”), appended to Def.’s Mot., Docket Entry
No. 15-1; Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. (Pls.’ Opp’n), Docket Entry No. 16; Def.’s Reply in Supp.
of Def.’s Mot. (“Def.’s Reply”), Docket Entry No. 17.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
commerce company PDD Holdings” offering low-cost goods, primarily shipped from China.3
(Id. ¶ 18.)
b. The terms of use
Temu’s terms of use set forth policies and procedures governing the relationship between
Temu users and Temu.4 (See Terms.)
i. First page of the Terms
On the first page of the Terms, section 1.5 states in relevant part:
Please be aware that Section 19 below contains provisions
governing how disputes between you and us will be resolved,
including without limitation, any disputes that arose or were asserted
prior to the effective date of the Terms. Section 19 contains, among
other things, an agreement to arbitrate which requires, with limited
exceptions, that all disputes between you and us be resolved.
(Id. § 1.5; see id. § 19.) The provision further provides that:
Unless you opt out of the agreement to arbitrate within 30 days of
the effective date of the agreement: (1) you and we will only be
permitted to pursue disputes or claims and seek relief against the
other party on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member
in any class or representative action or proceeding and each of us
waives our right to participate in a class action lawsuit or class-wide
arbitration; and (2) each of us is waiving our right to pursue disputes
or claims and seek relief in a court of law and to have a jury trial. In
3 The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Complaint and the motion
papers filed by the parties to decide Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. See Meyer v. Uber
Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2017) (noting that when resolving a motion to compel
arbitration, a “court consider[s] all relevant, admissible evidence submitted by the parties and
contained in ‘pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together
with . . . affidavits’” (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir.
2002))); BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, No. 23-CV-2360, 2025 WL 2845758, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Sep. 29, 2025) (“Courts routinely consider documents outside the pleadings when evaluating
motions to compel arbitration . . . .” (quoting Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc., 638 F. Supp. 3d
357, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 2022))).
4 Plaintiffs provide a copy of the Terms dated December 19, 2023. (See Temu’s Terms of
Use last updated Dec. 19, 2023 (“Terms”), annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 1, Docket Entry No. 1-5.)
Defendant refers to the exhibits annexed to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, including the Terms, in their
briefing papers. Accordingly, the Court cites the December 19, 2023 Terms.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
some countries you may have additional rights and/or elements of
the arbitration agreement may not apply to you as required by law. 5
(Id. § 1.5.) Section 19.1 specifies that the parties “agree that any dispute, claim, or disagreement
arising out of or relating in any way to your access to or use of [Temu’s applications, products,
services, and websites (“Services”)] . . . will be resolved by binding arbitration . . . rather than in
court . . . .” (Id. § 19.1.) It states further that all disputes are governed by New York law. (Id. §
18.3.)
ii. Informal Dispute Resolution
Section 19.2 of the Terms provides an IDR condition precedent to commencing
arbitration that requires before “either party commences arbitration against the other,” the parties
“will personally meet and confer telephonically or via videoconference, in a good faith effort to
resolve informally any [d]ispute covered by this [a]rbitration [a]greement” (the “IDR
Conference”). (Id. § 19.2.) “[C]ounsel may participate in the [IDR C]onference, but [the
complainant] also agree[s] to participate in the conference.” (Id.) “The party initiating a
[d]ispute must give notice to the other party in writing of its intent to initiate an [IDR]
Conference” which must include “a description of [the dispute]” along with account
identification information (the “IDR Notice”). (Id.) “Engaging in the [IDR] Conference is a
condition precedent and requirement that must be fulfilled before commencing arbitration,” and
any “statute of limitations and any filing fee deadlines shall be tolled while the parties engage in
the [IDR] Conference process required by this section.”6 (Id.)
If the IDR Process “does not resolve satisfactorily within sixty (60) days after receipt of
[IDR] Notice, [the parties] agree that either party shall have the right to finally resolve the
5 All-caps formatting was removed for clarity.
6 In this Memorandum and Order, the Court refers to the IDR Conference and IDR
Notice requirements collectively as the “IDR Requirements” or the “IDR Process.” The Court
also refers to the IDR Requirements as preconditions or conditions precedent to arbitration.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
[d]ispute through binding arbitration.” (Id. § 19.5.) “The arbitration will be conducted by [the]
[the ‘AAA’], [ ] under its rules,” (id.), and the arbitrator “will be either a retired judge or an
attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York” and “will be selected by the parties
from the AAA roster of consumer dispute arbitrators,” (id. § 19.6).
Section 19.7 of the Terms specifies that “[t]he arbitrator shall have exclusive authority to
resolve any [d]ispute, including, without limitation, disputes arising out of or related to the
interpretation or application of the [a]rbitration [a]greement, including the enforceability,
revocability, scope, or validity of the [a]rbitration [a]greement or any portion of the [a]rbitration
[a]greement . . .” (the “Delegation Clause”), except for limited exceptions, including disputes
“arising out of or relating to” Section 19.4’s class action waiver, disputes regarding the payment
of arbitration fees, disputes about the satisfaction of “any condition precedent to arbitration,” and
“[d]isputes about which version of the [a]rbitration [a]greement applies,” (the “Carveout to the
Delegation Clause”). (Id. § 19.7.) “[A]ll [d]isputes about whether either party has satisfied any
condition precedent to arbitration shall be decided only by a court of competent jurisdiction and
not by an arbitrator.” (Id.)
iii. Batch arbitration
In addition, Section 19.9 of the Terms sets forth a “batch arbitration” clause, which
provides that:
[I]n the event that there are one hundred (100) or more individual [r]equests
of a substantially similar nature filed against [Temu] by or with the
assistance of the same law firm, group of law firms, or organizations, . . .
[the] AAA shall (1) administer the arbitration demands in batches of 100
[r]equests per batch (plus, to the extent there are less than 100 [r]equests left
over after the batching described above, a final batch consisting of the
remaining [r]equests); (2) appoint one arbitrator for each batch; and (3)
provide for the resolution of each batch as a single consolidated arbitration
with one set of filing and administrative fees due per side per batch, one
procedural calendar, one hearing (if any) in a place to be determined by the
arbitrator, and one final award (“Batch Arbitration”).
(Id. § 19.9.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
c. Factual background — IDR Process
In accordance with the Terms, Plaintiffs filed IDR Notices prior to seeking arbitration,
beginning on January 22, 2024, (Compl. ¶ 34), for a total of 9,937 putative claimants, (Def.’s
Mem. 5). (See McMahan IDR Notice of Dispute.) Plaintiffs scheduled over 9,600 individual
IDR Conferences with Defendant over a fifty-eight-day period, each scheduled for twenty
minutes. (Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024, annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 5,
Docket Entry No. 1-5.)
On February 19, 2024, the first day of the scheduled IDR Conferences, the parties
conducted five virtual IDR Conferences, where five individual Plaintiffs attended virtually with
counsel.7 (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 40.) Plaintiffs argue that the remaining Plaintiffs attended through
counsel, and a customer service representative and counsel attended for Defendant. (Id. ¶¶ 37,
40; Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Mar. 26, 2024, annexed Kind Decl. as Ex. 6,
Docket Entry No. 1-5.) After the five IDR Conferences, Plaintiffs canceled all the remaining
scheduled IDR Conferences, (Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024); the parties dispute
what factually transpired at the five IDR Conferences, discussed infra in Section II.b.iii.2. (Id.;
Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Mar. 26, 2024.)
On March 27, 2024, Plaintiffs began filing their claims, comprising of 15,648 arbitration
demands, in the AAA. (Compl. ¶ 41; Def.’s Mem. 7.) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs filed
these claims without first completing an IDR Conference. (Compl. ¶ 42; Def.’s Mem. 7.)
Additional individuals filed arbitration demands in June and August of 2024, for a total of over
20,000 demands. (Def.’s Mem. 7.) After the arbitration demands were filed, the parties began
disputing whether Plaintiffs satisfied the preconditions to arbitration, namely individual IDR
7 The five Plaintiffs who attended IDR Conferences are the named Plaintiffs: Aalany
McMahan, Isaac Dwek, Luke Seagraves, Avrohom Shor and Ariella Shor. (See Plaintiffs’
Decls., appended to Compl., Docket Entry Nos. 1-6–1-10.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Conferences, and whether an arbitrator has jurisdiction to resolve Plaintiffs’ challenges to the
enforceability of Sections 19.2 and 19.7 of the Terms, with the parties seeking to arbitrate both
(1) the dispute over satisfaction of preconditions to arbitration, and (2) whether an arbitrator or a
court has jurisdiction over this dispute. (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 47; Joint Statement of Issues, annexed to
Decl. of Serrin Turner (“Turner Decl.”) as Ex. C, Docket Entry No. 15-5.)
Defendant argues that a court must determine both issues under the Terms before
Plaintiffs can proceed to arbitration. (Def.’s Mem. 2.) The parties also dispute whether the other
party participated in the IDR Conferences in good faith. (Compl. ¶¶ 38–40; Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR
Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024; Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Mar. 26, 2024.)
d. Procedural background
i. Prior arbitration
On June 3, 2024, the AAA informed the parties that it would appoint a Process
Arbitrator8 to review the arguments and then appointed Process Arbitrator Dana Welsh on June
28, 2024.9 (AAA Ltr. dated June 28, 2024, annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 10, Docket Entry No.
8 The AAA developed Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules to “streamline the
administration of large volume filings involving the same [or related] party, parties, and party
representative(s).” (See AAA Mass Arb. Suppl. Rules 3, annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 9-3,
Docket Entry No. 1-5.) These Rules apply whenever twenty-five or more similar demands for
arbitration are filed. (Id. at 4.) Under these Rules, to decide procedural and preliminary matters,
the AAA “may, in its sole discretion, appoint a Process Arbitrator,” who has the authority to
determine, among other issues, satisfaction of filing requirements, disputes over applicable
conditions precedent, and any other issue submitted. (Id. at 6–7.) A Process Arbitrator also has
the authority to “rule on their own jurisdiction.” (Id. at 7.) Once the Process Arbitrator decides
the relevant issues, the proceedings continue with a Merits Arbitrator, an arbitrator who
determines the merits of the filed arbitration demands. (Id. at 7–8.) The rulings of a Process
Arbitrator are final and binding on the parties and the Merits Arbitrator, unless the Merits
Arbitrator determines that the Process Arbitrator abused their discretion. (Id. at 8.)
9 Defendant argues the parties jointly selected a Process Arbitrator, (Def.’s Mem. 8), and
Plaintiffs “indisputably consented” to the Process Arbitrator deciding the issues, (Def.’s Reply 3
n.1). Plaintiffs disagree and contend that they “did not consent to submit any issue to the Process
Arbitrator.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 10.) Plaintiffs argue that their position throughout has been that the
issues should have been sent to a Merits Arbitrator instead. (Pls.’ Mem. 6 n.1, 8–9; Pls.’ Opp’n
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
1-5; Def.’s Mem. 8.) On July 26, 2024, the Process Arbitrator issued a scheduling order
directing the parties to brief the following issues:
Whether the issue of enforceability of § 19.2 of Temu’s Terms of Use is a
defense to the question of whether the Individual Claimants have satisfied
the Informal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) precondition to arbitration. In that
event, pursuant to § 19.7 of Temu’s Terms of Use, a court must decide
whether the precondition has been met. Alternatively, whether the issue of
enforceability of § 19.2 of Temu’s Terms of Use must be decided prior to
any determination of whether the IDR precondition has been met, in which
case, merits arbitrators must decide the issue of enforceability.
(AAA Scheduling Order dated July 26, 2024.) The parties briefed the matter before the Process
Arbitrator. (Compl. ¶¶ 44–47; Def.’s Mem. 8–9.)
10–11.) The Court finds the Joint Statement of Issues and the parties’ briefing before the
Process Arbitrator indicates Plaintiffs’ consent. The Joint Statement of Issues that the parties
provided to the AAA states that the parties “request the Process Arbitrator to resolve” (1) the
primary issue of whether the AAA has jurisdiction to resolve the parties’ dispute over
enforceability of Section 19.2 under the Terms, and (2) after jurisdiction is determined, and if the
AAA retains jurisdiction, the secondary issue of whether a Process Arbitrator or a Merits
Arbitrator can resolve the dispute. (Joint Statement of Issues; AAA Joint Statement Redline,
annexed to Pls.’ Opp’n as Ex. 18.1, Docket Entry No. 16-3.) By proceeding with briefing and
providing a Joint Statement of Issues asking the Process Arbitrator to resolve the primary issue
of whether the AAA has jurisdiction over the dispute, Plaintiffs consented to the ruling of the
Process Arbitrator with respect to the issues in the Scheduling Order, which they cannot now
object to because of the adverse ruling. (See AAA Mass Arb. Suppl. Rules (Rule MA-6 states
that “[a] Process Arbitrator shall have the authority to determine . . . [a]ny other issue(s) the
parties agree in writing to submit to the Process Arbitrator” and “[r]ulings by the Process
Arbitrator will be final and binding upon the parties.”); AAA Scheduling Order dated July 26,
2024, Individual Claimants v. Whaleco, Inc., Case No. 01-24-0003-3726, annexed to Kind Decl.
as Ex. 17, Docket Entry No. 1-5); Generali Espana de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier
Shipping, Inc., No. 22-1150, 2023 WL 3362839, at *2 (2d Cir. May 11, 2023) (summary order)
(finding a party waived their right to object to an arbitration holding by taking part in the
arbitration proceedings and only raising its objection after the adverse ruling); Opals on Ice
Lingerie v. Bodylines Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 368 (2d Cir. 2003) (“[I]f a party participates in
arbitration proceedings without making a timely objection to the submission of the dispute to
arbitration, that party may be found to have waived its right to object to the arbitration.”); see
also Parrella v. Orange Rabbit, Inc., No. 20-CV-9923, 2021 WL 4462809, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.
Sep. 29, 2021) (“The Second Circuit, however, has held an agreement to arbitrate can be implied
from a party’s conduct in the arbitration proceedings.” (citing Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines,
933 F.2d 1100, 1103 (2d Cir. 1991))); Gvozdenovic, 933 F.2d at 1103 (“We hold that, because
appellants participated voluntarily and actively in the arbitration process, they are bound by its
outcome . . . .”).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 8 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
On September 19, 2024, the Process Arbitrator issued an order finding that Section 19.2
is a “jurisdictional requirement,” and “the AAA has no jurisdiction over the dispute” because the
Terms specify that a court has the authority to determine satisfaction of the preconditions to
arbitration, “including the issues of whether § 19.2 is enforceable and whether the parties
engaged in the IDR [P]rocess in good faith.” (AAA Order dated Sep. 19, 2024, Individual
Claimants v. Whaleco, Inc., Case No. 01-24-0003-3726, annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 15,
Docket Entry No. 1-5.) The Process Arbitrator’s order stated challenges to the enforceability of
the Terms’ conditions precedent to arbitration is also reserved for a court, “notwithstanding the
[Terms’] grant of exclusive authority to the arbitrator to consider the issue of enforceability”
because “[u]nconscionability of a contractual provision is a defense to a claim of non-
compliance with that provision.”10 (Id.)
Plaintiffs then commenced this action, objecting to the Process Arbitrator’s determination
regarding jurisdiction and requesting that the Court compel arbitration on the issues. (Pls.’ Mem.
8–9; Compl. ¶¶ 1, 49.)
ii. Similar litigation
The Court is familiar with Temu’s Terms and its arbitration agreement having presided
over two other similar matters: (1) Hu v. Whaleco, Inc., 779 F. Supp. 3d 265, 292 (E.D.N.Y.
2024) (the “Hu litigation”); and (2) Ziboukh v. Whaleco, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 3d 349, 388–91
10 The Process Arbitrator also ruled that the issues in Hu v. Whaleco, Inc., 779 F. Supp.
3d 265 (E.D.N.Y. 2024), a case concerning Temu’s Terms, discussed supra in Section I.d.ii,
which held that the Terms required the parties to arbitrate disputes regarding questions of
arbitrability, are distinguishable from the issues in this case, even though enforceability is raised
in both, because Plaintiffs are seeking to compel arbitration and not comply with the IDR
Conference requirement, while the plaintiffs in Hu sought to avoid arbitration. (AAA Order
dated Sep. 19, 2024.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 9 of 110 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
(E.D.N.Y. 2025) (the “Ziboukh litigation”).11 On October 1, 2024, the Court granted the Hu
defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, explaining that Temu’s “[r]egistration [s]creen
provided [the p]laintiffs with ‘reasonably conspicuous notice’ of the Terms,” Hu, 779 F. Supp.
3d at 292, and that the plaintiffs, “through their conduct, unambiguously manifested assent to the
Terms,” and therefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant “entered into an agreement to arbitrate,”
id. at 296. The Court also concluded that Temu’s Terms “provide[d] ‘clear and unmistakable
evidence’ that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes regarding questions of arbitrability,” and
because “neither [the p]laintiffs nor [a]mici challenge[d] the delegation clause specifically, the
Court must treat the delegation clause as valid and defer any questions of arbitrability to the
arbitrator.” Id. at 299. On August 14, 2025, the Court likewise granted the Ziboukh defendants’
motion to compel arbitration on similar grounds, finding the parties executed a valid arbitration
agreement, Section 19.7 of the Terms “provide[d] ‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the
parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability,” and the plaintiffs failed to challenge the
delegation clause with specificity. Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 388–91. Accordingly, the Court
determined it “must treat the clause as valid and enforceable” and deferred the plaintiffs’
challenges of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Id. at 389–90.
II. Discussion
a. Standards of review
i. Motion to compel arbitration
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires courts to compel arbitration of claims that
the parties have agreed to arbitrate. See AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339
11 Hu and Ziboukh v. Whaleco, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2025) considered
different versions of the Terms with different numbering, but the Sections referenced are
materially the same as the version of the Terms cited by the parties in this case. Accordingly, the
Court adopts the section numbering of the Terms cited by the parties in this case when referring
to the Terms in Hu and Ziboukh.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 10 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
(2011). “Arbitration is a matter of contract and consent,” and the Supreme Court has “long held
that disputes are subject to arbitration if, and only if, the parties actually agreed to arbitrate those
disputes.” Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143, 145 (2024); see Davitashvili v. Grubhub Inc.,
131 F.4th 109, 114 (2d Cir. 2025) (“The [FAA] reflects ‘both a liberal federal policy favoring
arbitration and the fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.’” (quoting
Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 339)). Thus, “[a]rbitration is ‘a way to resolve those disputes — but
only those disputes — that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.’. . . Consequently, the
first question in any arbitration dispute must be: What have these parties agreed to?” Coinbase,
602 U.S. at 148 (quoting First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995)); see
also Cooper v. Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., 990 F.3d 173, 179 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Courts
consider two factors when deciding if a dispute is arbitrable: ‘(1) whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate, and, if so, (2) whether the scope of that agreement encompasses the claims at issue.’”
(quoting Holick v. Cellular Sales of N.Y, LLC, 802 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2015))); Doctor’s
Assocs., Inc. v. Alemayehu, 934 F.3d 245, 250 (2d Cir. 2019) (“The threshold question facing any
court considering a motion to compel arbitration is . . . whether the parties have indeed agreed to
arbitrate.” (alteration in the original) (quoting Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp., 697 F.3d 110, 118 (2d
Cir. 2012))).
In deciding a motion to compel arbitration, courts apply a similar standard to that applied
to a motion for summary judgment and “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
moving party.” Davitashvili, 131 F.4th at 115 (quoting Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d
220, 229 (2d Cir. 2016)); see also Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advert. Fund Tr., Ltd., 999 F.3d
828, 833–34 (2d Cir. 2021) (first quoting Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 229; and then quoting Meyer v.
Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 74 (2d Cir. 2017)). “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears
an initial burden of demonstrating that an agreement to arbitrate was made.” Zachman v. Hudson
Valley Fed. Credit Union, 49 F.4th 95, 101–02 (2d Cir. 2022). “This burden does not require the
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 11 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
moving party to show that the agreement would be enforceable — only that an agreement to
arbitrate existed.” Id. at 102. If the existence of an agreement to arbitrate is established, the
burden shifts to the party “seeking to avoid arbitration . . . [to show] the agreement to be
inapplicable or invalid.” Harrington v. Atl. Sounding Co., 602 F.3d 113, 124 (2d Cir. 2010)
(citing Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91–92 (2000)); see also Zachman,
49 F.4th at 102 (quoting Harrington, 602 F.3d at 124). In addition, “[a] district court must stay
proceedings once it is ‘satisfied that the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue or
issues underlying the district court proceeding.’” Nicosia, 834 F.3d at 229 (quoting WorldCrisa
Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71, 74 (2d Cir. 1997)); see Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478
(2024) (“When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party
requests a stay pending arbitration, . . . the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding.”); Katz
v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[A] stay of proceedings [is] necessary after
all claims have been referred to arbitration and a stay requested.”); see also Frazier v. X Corp.,
155 F.4th 87, 96 (2d Cir. 2025) (“Where a court determines that (1) the parties have agreed to
arbitrate, (2) the claims at issue fall within the scope of that agreement, and (3) none of the claims
at issue are ‘nonarbitrable,’ the court’s analysis under 9 U.S.C. § 4 is at an end, and the FAA
‘mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.’” (quoting Daly v.
Citigroup Inc., 939 F.3d 415, 421 (2d Cir. 2019))).
b. The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration for the five
Plaintiffs who participated in an IDR Conference and denies the remaining
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration
The parties raise several issues as to the scope of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs and
Defendant agree that the parties entered into a valid, binding arbitration agreement under the
Terms, and the Court finds no reason to conclude otherwise. (Pls.’ Mem. 3; see generally Def.’s
Mem.) See also Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 388–92 (finding a valid arbitration agreement
existed between users and defendant Temu because “[p]laintiffs unambiguously manifested
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 12 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

13
assent to the Terms,” quoting Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 288, 293, and the Temu app’s registration
screen provided “clear and conspicuous” notice of the Terms); Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 295–96
(same).
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should grant the motion to compel arbitration because (1)
all pending issues are for an arbitrator to determine, or (2) in the alternative, Plaintiffs are not
required to attend additional IDR Conferences and may proceed to arbitration on the merits.
(Pls.’ Mem. 8.)
First, Plaintiffs argue the Process Arbitrator’s Order does not preclude the Court from
compelling arbitration before a Merits Arbitrator. (Id. at 8–10; Pls.’ Opp’n 9–11.) In support,
Plaintiffs argue a Process Arbitrator may only decide limited procedural and administrative
issues under the AAA and merits determinations, including enforceability and arbitrability, must
be determined by a Merits Arbitrator. (Pls.’ Mem. 6 n.1, 8–10; Pls.’ Opp’n 9–11.) Second,
Plaintiffs argue that all the issues in the parties’ dispute are for an arbitrator to decide under the
Terms, including: (a) enforceability of Section 19.2, the IDR Requirements, (Pls.’ Mem. 8–12;
Pls.’ Opp’n 13); (b) “waiver” of IDR Requirements, (Pls.’ Mem. 8, 12–13; Pls.’ Opp’n 13–14);
(c) enforceability of Section 19.7’s Carveout to the Delegation Clause that exempts IDR
satisfaction disputes from proceeding to arbitration, (Pls.’ Mem. 8, 13–14; Pls.’ Opp’n 11–13);
and (d) satisfaction of IDR Requirements, (Pls.’ Mem. 8, 14–19; Pls.’ Opp’n 13–14). In the
alternative, if the Court rules on the merits of the enforceability challenge to Section 19.7’s
Carveout to the Delegation Clause, Plaintiffs argue the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is
unenforceable because it: (a) is unconscionable, (Pls.’ Mem. 14–16; Pls.’ Opp’n 14–16); (b)
violates public policy, (Pls.’ Mem. 14, 16–17; Pls.’ Opp’n 14, 16); (c) leads to absurd results,
(Pls.’ Mem. 14, 17–18; Pls.’ Opp’n 14, 16–17); and (d) should be severed, (Pls.’ Mem. 14, 18–
19; Pls.’ Opp’n 14, 17). Plaintiffs also argue that if the Court rules on the enforceability
challenge to the IDR Conference requirement, the Court should find that no additional IDR
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 13 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

14
Conferences are required because: (a) the IDR Conference requirement is unconscionable, (Pls.’
Mem. 19–22; Pls.’ Opp’n 17–21); (b) Defendant waived its right to enforce the IDR Conference
requirement, (Pls.’ Mem. 19, 23–24; Pls.’ Opp’n 17–18, 22); (c) any future IDR Conferences
would be futile or impossible, (Pls.’ Mem. 24; Pls.’ Opp’n 17–18, 22–24); and (d) Plaintiffs
satisfied the IDR Conference requirement through substantial compliance, (Pls.’ Mem. 19, 24–
26; Pls.’ Opp’n 17–18, 24–25).
Defendant argues that the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.
First, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs are bound by the Process Arbitrator’s ruling and
collaterally estopped from asking the Court to reverse the AAA’s determination of its own
jurisdiction and relitigate the issues already determined in arbitration. (Def.’s Mem. 1, 11–14.)
Second, Defendant argues the Court is the proper venue to resolve disputes over compliance with
the IDR Conference requirement, including whether Plaintiffs have a valid excuse for failing to
comply under the plain language of the Terms, the AAA’s rules and case law. (Id. at 1–2, 14–
17.) Third, Defendant argues that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is enforceable. (Id. at
2, 17–18.) Fourth, Defendant contends that the Court should find the IDR Requirements
enforceable, no affirmative defenses apply, and Plaintiffs failed to comply with those
requirements. (Id. at 2, 19–25; Def.’s Reply 5–10.)
The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ arguments in the following order: (1) challenges to the
Carveout to the Delegation Clause; (2) whether the Court is bound by the Process Arbitrator’s
ruling; and (3) challenges to the Terms’ IDR Requirements.
i. Challenges to the Carveout to the Delegation Clause
The Court first addresses whether Plaintiffs’ enforceability challenge to the Carveout to
the Delegation Clause should be decided by the Court or an arbitrator, and then addresses
Plaintiffs’ arguments that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unenforceable.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 14 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

15
1. Plaintiffs’ direct challenge to the Delegation Clause removes
the issue of arbitrability from the AAA to the Court
Plaintiffs argue that their enforceability challenge to the Carveout to the Delegation
Clause exempting disputes over the satisfaction of the IDR Requirements from proceeding to
arbitration is for an arbitrator to decide under the Terms because the Terms “clearly and
unmistakably” “delegate[] questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the enforceability
of the [Carveout to the Delegation Clause] itself.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 11.) Plaintiffs also argue that the
Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unenforceable because it is (1) unconscionable, (2) violates
public policy, (3) leads to absurd results, and (4) should be severed. (Id. at 14–17.)
Defendant argues the challenge to the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is a challenge to
the Delegation Clause that must be heard by the Court. (Def.’s Mem. 15–18.)
As the Court explained in both Ziboukh and Hu, “section [19].7 of the Terms provides
‘clear and unmistakable evidence’ that the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.”
Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 389 (quoting Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 298). The Court found that
Section 19.7 provides a broad delegation to the arbitrator, granting the arbitrator “exclusive
authority” to resolve disputes “arising out of or related to the interpretation or application of the
[a]rbitration [a]greement, including the enforceability, revocability, scope, or validity of the
[a]rbitration [a]greement.” Id. (citing Terms § 19.7; Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 298). The Court
determined in both Ziboukh and Hu that it “must treat the clause as valid and enforceable” and
deferred the plaintiffs’ challenges of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Id. at 389–90; Hu, 779 F.
Supp. 3d at 299 (same). The Supreme Court has instructed that “if a valid agreement exists, and
if the agreement delegates the arbitrability issue to an arbitrator, a court may not decide the
arbitrability issue,” Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 69 (2019),
“unless [the plaintiffs] challenged the delegation provision specifically,” Rent-A-Center, W., Inc.
v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 72 (2010) (emphasis added). See Davitashvili, 131 F.4th at 118
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 15 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

16
(quoting same); see also Coinbase, 602 U.S. at 151 (“If a party challenges the validity . . . of the
precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before
ordering compliance with that [arbitration] agreement.” (alterations in original) (quoting Rent-A-
Center, 561 U.S. at 72)). The Court in Ziboukh and Hu held the delegation clause was valid and
all questions of arbitrability should be deferred to the arbitrator “because no party or amici
challenged the delegation clause itself.” Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 389 (citing Hu, 779 F.
Supp. 3d at 299–300).
In contrast to the plaintiffs in the Ziboukh and Hu litigation, Plaintiffs in this case directly
challenge the Delegation Clause by arguing the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is
unenforceable because it is unconscionable (unduly expensive, causes delays, one-sided),
violates public policy, and leads to absurd results (procedural whiplash). These challenges
constitute a “specific attack” on a portion of the Delegation Clause, as opposed to the arbitration
agreement more generally, and the Court must therefore consider these challenges. See Gingras
v. Think Fin., Inc., 922 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 2019) (the plaintiffs “specific[ally] attack[ed]” the
delegation clause by alleging the delegation provision was fraudulent); see also Rent-A-Center,
561 U.S. at 72–73 (declining to consider the plaintiff’s unconscionability challenges because
none were specific to the delegation provision); Davitashvili, 131 F.4th at 118–19 (explaining
that because the “[p]laintiffs fail to challenge the clause with sufficient specificity” and argue
only “that arbitration in general would be unconscionable,” the plaintiffs’ claims against the
defendants “should be sent to an arbitrator to determine whether those claims are arbitrable”);
Werman v. Nordstrom, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, ---, 2025 WL 3650342, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17,
2025) (finding the plaintiff’s unconscionability challenges concerned the arbitration agreement
generally and were “not specific to the delegation provision”); Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 390–
91 (finding the plaintiffs’ arguments regarding conscionability concerned the arbitration
agreement broadly rather than delegation clause); Vasell v. SeatGeek, Inc., No. 24-CV-932, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 16 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

17
WL 240912, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2025) (explaining “[a]bsent allegations or evidence
suggesting” that the delegation provision “is invalid or inapplicable — which [the] plaintiffs do
not raise and the [c]ourt does not discern based on the record before it — the arbitrability of [the
plaintiffs’] claims is also clearly a question for arbitration”); Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at
299 (“Although [a]mici challenge various aspects of the arbitration agreement, such as arguing
that the batch arbitration clause and various procedural prerequisites to arbitration are
substantively unconscionable, they do not specifically challenge the delegation clause.” (citation
omitted)); Lin v. DISH Network, No. 19-CV-1087, 2020 WL 13845109, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5,
2020) (“Because the plaintiff does not challenge the enforceability of the delegation clause, the
[c]ourt must treat it as valid, enforce it and leave the plaintiff’s enforceability challenges for the
arbitrator.”). The Court therefore addresses the enforceability challenges to the Carveout to the
Delegation Clause as set forth in the Delegation Clause.
2. The Carveout to the Delegation Clause is valid
Plaintiffs challenge the enforceability of the Carveout to the Delegation Clause and argue
it is (1) unconscionable, (2) violates public policy, (3) leads to absurd results, and (4) should be
severed. (Pls.’ Opp’n 14–17.)
First, Plaintiffs argue the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unconscionable because it
allows Defendant to “bounce cases between forums to evade liability.” (Id. at 15.) Plaintiffs
contend that this “imposes significant costs and delays on a consumer seeking to arbitrate against
Temu” by requiring Plaintiffs to file in “both arbitration and court — only to be sent back again.”
(Id. at 14.) In support, Plaintiffs state the Carveout to the Delegation Clause serves “no purpose
other than to delay consumers’ ability to seek relief.” (Id. at 15.) In addition, Plaintiffs argue
that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unconscionable because it is “one-sided, applying
only to disputes [Defendant] would bring,” and the process which delays arbitration is “designed
to benefit only [Defendant].” (Id. at 14–15.) Plaintiffs further argue that Defendant’s assertion
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 17 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

18
that Plaintiffs “simply need to participate in the IDR Process,” (id. at 14), to proceed with
arbitration is dishonest because Defendant can “simply ‘challenge’ whether the conference
requirement was ‘satisfied’” even when a consumer attempts to comply with the IDR Conference
requirement in good faith, (Pls.’ Mem. 16).
Second, Plaintiffs argue the Carveout to the Delegation Clause “violates core public
policies favoring single-forum resolution and efficient, cost-effective arbitration,” such as the
policy underlying the FAA, by allowing Defendant to “force consumers into court despite good-
faith arbitration efforts.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 16.) Plaintiffs also argue that piecemeal litigation is
“wasteful of the courts’ resources and against public policy to limit the courts’ need to supervise
the arbitration proceedings.” (Pls.’ Mem. 17.)
Third, Plaintiffs argue that requiring the arbitrator and the court to each “make piecemeal
determinations (enforceability and satisfaction, respectively)” leads to absurd results and “a
strong likelihood of inconsistent rulings and confusion to the parties.” (Id.) Plaintiffs state this
“sequencing forces an advisory opinion, which courts may not issue” and will cause “procedural
whiplash” and “ping-ponging between forums” against the Terms’ goal of streamlining the
resolution of claims. (Pls.’ Opp’n 17.) Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that the Carveout to the
Delegation Clause should be severed because it is unenforceable and “the parties’ intent was
plainly for the arbitrator or resolve ‘all disputes.’” (Pls.’ Mem. 18.)
Defendant argues the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is enforceable because it
embodies a New York law principle requiring courts to hear challenges to compliance with
conditions precedent to arbitration “where the agreement expressly states that compliance with
the contractual notice provision is a condition precedent to arbitration.” (Def.’s Mem. 15–18
(quoting Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v. Computer Scis. Corp., 579 N.Y.S.2d 517 (App. Div.
1992)).) First, Defendant argues that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not prohibitively
expensive and will not result in delays because consumers only need to comply with the IDR
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 18 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

19
Process. (Id. at 18.) Defendant also argues the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not one-
sided because it applies equally to the parties, and the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not
unconscionable based on Defendant’s superior bargaining power because Plaintiffs may shop on
other apps. (Id.) Second, Defendant argues the Carveout to the Delegation Clause does not
contravene public policy because arbitration agreements may validly assign certain issues to a
court. (Def.’s Reply 5.) In addition, any “bounc[ing] between arbitration and court” that
Plaintiffs claim in this case is a “problem of their own making because they made a strategic
decision to file arbitration demands knowing they had not fulfilled a precondition to doing so,”
and Plaintiffs themselves are now “asking the Court to send them back to arbitration.” (Id.)
Arbitration agreements, like any contract, can be rendered invalid and unenforceable if
found to be either procedurally or substantively unconscionable. 9 U.S.C. § 2 (“A written
provision in . . . a contract . . . to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such
contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds
as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract . . . .”); see, e.g., Am. Fam. Life
Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Baker, 778 F. App’x 24, 26–28 (2d Cir. 2019) (assessing substantive
and procedural unconscionability of arbitration agreement); Ragone v. Atl. Video at Manhattan
Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[G]enerally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud,
duress, or unconscionability, may be applied to invalidate arbitration agreements.” (quoting
Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687 (1996))).
“The doctrine of unconscionability seeks to prevent sophisticated parties with grossly
unequal bargaining power from taking advantage of less sophisticated parties.” KLS Diversified
Master Fund, L.P. v. McDevitt, No. 21-1263, 2022 WL 2759055, at *3 (2d Cir. July 13, 2022)
(summary order) (quoting NML Cap. v. Republic of Argentina, 621 F.3d 230, 237 (2d Cir.
2010)). “Under New York law, a contract is unconscionable when it is ‘so grossly unreasonable
or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 19 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

20
unenforceable . . . according to its literal terms.’” Ragone, 595 F.3d at 121 (quoting Nayal v.
HIP Network Servs. IPA, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 566, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). “Generally, there
must be a showing that such a contract is both procedurally and substantially unconscionable.”
Id. (quoting Nayal, 620 F. Supp. 2d at 571). Procedural unconscionability “requires an
examination of the contract formation process and the alleged lack of meaningful choice” while
substantive unconscionability involves “whether one or more key [contract] terms are
unreasonably favorable to one party.” Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of N.Y., 778 F. App’x at 26–
27 (first quoting Gillman v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 73 N.Y.2d 1, 10–11 (1988); and then
quoting Sablosky v. Edward S. Gordon Co., 73 N.Y.2d 133, 138 (1989)); Ragone, 595 F.3d at
121 (quoting Nayal, 620 F. Supp. 2d at 571) (same); see David L. Threlkeld & Co. v.
Metallgesellschaft Ltd. (London), 923 F.2d 245, 249 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting that the “purpose of
the unconscionability doctrine is to prevent unfair surprise and oppression” (quoting Pierson v.
Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc., 742 F.2d 334, 339 (7th Cir. 1984))); Clinton v. Oppenheimer &
Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d 476, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (adopting report and recommendation) (“For a
contract to be held unconscionable, the party alleging the defect must generally show both
substantive and procedural unconscionability . . . . That is, the contract must unreasonably favor
one party over the other and the process of contract formation must have deprived the
disadvantaged party of meaningful choice.” (internal citations omitted)); Nayal, 620 F. Supp. 2d
at 571 (collecting cases). “[T]here are some exceptional cases where a provision of a contract is
so outrageous as to warrant holding it unenforceable on the ground of substantive
unconscionability alone.” McDevitt, 2022 WL 2759055, at *3 (alteration in original) (quoting
NML Cap., 621 F.3d at 237); Ragone, 595 F.3d at 122 (quoting Gillman, 73 N.Y.2d at 12)
(same); Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp., 352 F.3d 775, 787 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting
Gillman, 73 N.Y.2d at 12) (same); see Roitman v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 23-CV-6159, 2025
WL 3156503, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. July 28, 2025) (“Examples of substantive unconscionability
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 20 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

21
include ‘inflated prices, unfair termination clauses, unfair limitations on consequential damages
and improper disclaimers of warranty.’” (quoting State of New York v. Wolowitz, 468 N.Y.S.2d
131, 145 (App. Div. 1983))).
The Court finds that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is valid and not
unconscionable or against public policy, nor does it lead to absurd results.
A. The Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not
unconscionable due to piecemeal litigation
Plaintiffs fail to establish that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unenforceable as
unconscionable. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is
unenforceable since it imposes significant costs and results in piecemeal litigation because
consumers are forced to comply with IDR Requirements and then “bounce cases” between
forums, (Pls.’ Opp’n 15), “file their claims in the AAA, and then, separately, file in court before
being sent back to arbitration to pursue their claims,” (Pls.’ Mem. 14). Plaintiffs’ argument is
unpersuasive because Plaintiffs do not provide specific cost information and courts permit
piecemeal litigation to effectuate arbitration agreements. Further, Plaintiffs do not allege any
factual support demonstrating the financial burden of litigating claims pursuant to the Carveout
to the Delegation Clause.12 In addition, Plaintiffs’ alleged high costs from switching between
12 Plaintiffs cite to Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 92
(2000), to support their claim of significant costs but fail to provide factual support that the
arbitration agreement is prohibitively expensive given the size of their claims and the cost of
litigation. (Pls.’ Mem. 14; Pls.’ Opp’n 14.) See Vidal v. Advanced Care Staffing, LLC, No. 22-
CV-5535, 2023 WL 2783251, at *19 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2023) (“Courts applying New York law
have held that similar [fee-shifting] provisions in arbitration agreements are substantively
unconscionable where a party makes a ‘showing of individualized prohibitive expense that
considers factors including the financial means of plaintiff and the cost differential between
arbitration and litigation in court.’” (quoting Valle v. ATM Nat., LLC, No. 14-CV-7993, 2015
WL 413449, at *6–7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015))). In Green Tree Financial Corp., the Supreme
Court held that “where [ ] a party seeks to invalidate an arbitration agreement on the ground that
arbitration would be prohibitively expensive, that party bears the burden of showing the
likelihood of incurring such costs,” and the petitioner in that case failed to produce evidence
showing the costs. 531 U.S. at 90–92.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 21 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

22
forums are the result of the parties’ protracted disagreement and advocacy strategy, and not the
result of the Carveout to the Delegation Clause itself.
The Carveout to the Delegation Clause does not require the same claims to be
successively filed in AAA and then in court, as Plaintiffs contend, rather, the Carveout to the
Delegation Clause directs certain claims to an arbitrator and others to a court. Arbitration
agreements are enforceable even when the result is piecemeal litigation between parties. See
KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18, 19 (2011) (“The [FAA] has been interpreted to require that
if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the former must be sent to
arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation.” (citing Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v.
Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985)); Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460
U.S. 1, 3 (1983) (“[T]he relevant federal law, the Arbitration Act, requires piecemeal resolution
when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement.”); Deephaven Distressed
Opportunities Trading, Ltd. v. 3V Cap. Master Fund Ltd., 899 N.Y.S.2d 50, 51 (App. Div. 2010)
(“While [the third-party defendant] urges arbitration in the interest of judicial economy, we have
held that arbitration clauses, like contractual agreements, are to be enforced according to their
terms, the potential for bifurcated litigation notwithstanding.” (citing PNE Media v. Cistrone,
741 N.Y.S.2d 405 (App. Div. 2002))); CDx Diagnostics, Inc. v. Rutenberg, 175 N.Y.S.3d 714
(Sup. Ct. 2022) (“[I]t is well settled that arbitration clauses are binding contracts which must be
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show unconscionability on prohibitively
expensive grounds, and the Court therefore declines to invalidate the Carveout to the Delegation
Clause on the unsupported basis that adjudication is prohibitively expensive. See, e.g., Petry v.
AAM Holding Corp., No. 22-CV-3110, 2025 WL 1194739, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2025)
(rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration agreement should be severed because the
plaintiffs did not provide evidence that “financial hardship . . . will result from arbitration”),
report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 1194336 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2025); cf. Vidal,
2023 WL 2783251, at *19 (finding that the plaintiff “made a sufficient showing” that an
attorneys’ fees-shifting provision was substantively unfair where he specified that “even
challeng[ing] the threshold issues of arbitrability before the arbitrator” would cost over $11,000
and plaintiff earned $4,500 per month after taxes and incurred monthly expenses of $3,850).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 22 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

23
strictly enforced, even if enforcement will lead to bifurcated and overlapping litigation.” (citing
same)); see also Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 344 (“[The Supreme Court] ha[s] held that parties may
agree to limit the issues subject to arbitration . . . .” (citing Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985))); Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 473 U.S. at 628
(allowing a party to exclude a statutory claim from the scope of an arbitration agreement).
Because arbitration agreements are enforceable even when they result in piecemeal
litigation, Plaintiffs’ argument regarding delays resulting from piecemeal litigation is
unavailing.13 See, e.g., KPMG, 565 U.S. at 22 (“[W]hen a complaint contains both arbitrable and
nonarbitrable claims, the [FAA] requires courts to compel arbitration of pendent arbitrable
claims when one of the parties files a motion to compel, even where the result would be the
possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)); Starr v. Firstmark Corp., No. 12-CV-4023, 2012 WL 4891622, at
*8 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2012) (“[T]he possibility of judicial inefficiency or inconsistent judgments
resulting from piecemeal litigation, i.e., arbitration of arbitrable claims and judicial review of
related non-arbitrable claims, does not constitute irreparable harm.”).
B. The Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not
unconscionably one-sided
13 To support their argument regarding delays, Plaintiffs cite to out-of-circuit decisions
which the Court is not bound by and are distinguishable because they involve provisions not at
issue in this case and do not discuss delays from a carveout to delegation. (Pls.’ Mem. 16–17;
Pls.’ Opp’n 15–16 (citing Pandolfi v. Aviagames, Inc., No. 23-CV-5971, 2024 WL 4051754, at
*11 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2024) (finding unconscionable a bellwether provision of an arbitration
agreement first requiring a test set of twenty cases to be arbitrated before all other claims when
twenty-five or more similar claims were asserted by coordinated counsel); MacClelland v. Cellco
P’ship, 609 F. Supp. 3d 1024, 1040–42 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (finding unconscionable a mass
arbitration provision requiring sequential arbitration of similar claims represented by the same
counsel in groups of ten)).) The arbitration provisions discussed in both Pandolfi and
MacClelland paused arbitration of all other similar claims while a small group of claims was
arbitrated, but in this case, the Terms’ Batch Arbitration provision bundles 100 similar claims in
a group but does not require sequential arbitration and allows similar batches of claims to
proceed concurrently. (See Terms § 19.9.) Further, Plaintiffs do not specifically challenge the
Batch Arbitration provision of the Terms and only discuss delay generally.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 23 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

24
Plaintiffs fail to allege the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is unconscionably one-sided
by requiring some claims to be heard in court and others in arbitration when both parties have
equal access to a court or an arbitrator depending on the issue. See Mancilla v. ABM Indus., Inc.,
No. 20-CV-1330, 2020 WL 4432122, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020) (finding a mutual
arbitration agreement was “not one-sided” under New York law because “it subjects both parties
to mandatory arbitration for any claims arising out of [the p]laintiff’s employment”); Keyes v.
Ayco Co., L.P., No. 17-CV-955, 2018 WL 6674292, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018) (“By its
terms, the arbitration clause applies equally to both parties and is not unreasonably favorable to
either.”); see also Pearl v. Coinbase Glob., Inc.,14 No. 22-CV-3561, 2023 WL 1769190, at *7
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (finding a carveout to a delegation clause to an arbitration agreement
was not one-sided because the exceptions “afford[ed] both parties equal access to a court as
opposed to an arbitrator, even if one party is more likely to avail itself of that access”). Plaintiffs
raise additional arguments regarding the fairness of the IDR Requirements and Defendant’s
ability to “simply ‘challenge’ whether the conference requirement was ‘satisfied,’” resulting in
delays. (Pls.’ Mem. 16.) However, the ability to challenge the satisfaction of any condition
precedent to arbitration is mutual under the Terms. (See Terms § 19.2 (“You and we therefore
agree that before either party commences arbitration against the other . . . we will personally
14 Plaintiffs argue Pearl v. Coinbase Glob., Inc. is distinguishable because the petitioners
in that case, unlike here, “sought to litigate all arbitrability issues in court, so the carve-out
actually benefitted them.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 15 n.8 (citing No. 22-CV-3561, 2023 WL 1769190, at *7
(N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023)).) Plaintiffs’ distinction is unpersuasive because the court in that case
found the delegation clause and carveout were conscionable because of the mutuality of the
arbitration agreement’s terms “even if one party is more likely to avail itself of that access.” See
Pearl, 2023 WL 1769190, at *7. Further, Plaintiffs’ assertion that Pearl supports their argument
that challenges to the Carveout to the Delegation Clause are for an arbitrator, and not a court, is
incorrect. (See Pls.’ Opp’n 15 n.8.) Pearl holds under a similar arbitration agreement and
carveout to delegation that the “the subject of what has been carved out[] must be decided by the
arbitrator,” not that a challenge to the delegation clause and carveout is for an arbitrator. Pearl,
2023 WL 1769190, at *8 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Further, the Court is not bound by
Pearl as an out-of-circuit decision.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 24 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

25
meet and confer telephonically or via videoconference . . . .” (emphasis added)); Terms § 19.7
(“[A]ll [d]isputes about whether either party has satisfied any condition precedent to arbitration
shall be decided only by a court of competent jurisdiction and not by an arbitrator . . . .”
(emphasis added).)15 This is further supported by Plaintiffs own challenge in this case of
Defendant’s good faith during the IDR Conferences.
C. The Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not
procedurally unconscionable
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate procedural unconscionability based on unequal bargaining
power because the Terms apply equally during disputes, and Plaintiffs offer no support
indicating procedural unconscionability. Plaintiffs concede that there is a valid arbitration
agreement, and only vaguely raise a concern of unequal bargaining power with respect to the
Carveout to the Delegation Clause. This is inadequate to support a finding of unequal bargaining
power at the time of contract formation. Plaintiffs do not assert that they were surprised,
deceived, or lacked choice when entering the arbitration agreement. See Am. Fam. Life
Assurance Co. of N.Y., 778 F. App’x at 26 (holding appellants failed to demonstrate procedural
unconscionability because they “failed to offer actual evidence of high-pressure[] tactics,” and
“the arbitration-related provisions at issue here are not ‘deceptive’ or located ‘in fine print’”
(alteration in original) (citations omitted)); Roitman, 2025 WL 3156503, at *9 (concluding the
plaintiffs “cannot succeed on procedural unconscionability” because plaintiffs provided no
factual details of a lack of meaningful choice or deceptive tactics); Faith v. Khosrowshahi, No.
21-CV-6913, 2023 WL 5278126, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2023) (finding the plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate procedural unconscionability because “[e]ven with the understanding that there may
be unequal bargaining power between contracting parties, [the p]laintiff does not offer any
15 To the extent Plaintiffs’ arguments address the enforceability of the IDR
Requirements, the Court addresses those infra.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 25 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

26
specific facts demonstrating that any inequality warrants a finding of unconscionability”).
Plaintiffs also do not assert that they attempted to negotiate or opt-out of the arbitration
agreement, which Plaintiffs have a right to under the Terms. (Terms § 19.10 (“You have the
right to opt out of the provisions of this [a]rbitration [a]greement . . . within thirty (30) days . . .
.”).) See Pabon v. HRB Digital LLC, No. 23-CV-5363, 2025 WL 2254008, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.
7, 2025) (finding the plaintiff faced no meaningful lack of choice because “[s]he was on notice
of the terms of the agreement before she manifested her consent, and she declined to opt out”
within the allotted time period); Roitman, 2025 WL 3156503, at *9 (finding thirty-day opt-out
option in the arbitration agreement “alleviates any concern of unconscionability” (citing
Saizhang Guan v. Uber Techs., Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 711, 730–31 (E.D.N.Y. 2017))).
Even if Plaintiffs were unable to negotiate the Carveout to the Delegation Agreement,
this would not render it or the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. Courts uphold
arbitration agreements offered on a “take-it-or-leave-it basis” under New York law. See Am.
Fam. Life Assurance Co. of N.Y., 778 F. App’x at 27 (holding employment contract offered in a
“take-or-leave-it” fashion did not render the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable
under the FAA or New York law); Ragone, 595 F.3d at 122 (same); B & R Supermarket, Inc. v.
Visa Inc., No. 17-CV-2738, 2024 WL 3823096, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2024) (offering
arbitration agreement on a “take it or leave it” basis “is not enough to render the arbitration
provision procedurally unreasonable under New York law” (citing Ragone, 595 F.3d at 122)),
appeal docketed, No. 24-2344 (2d Cir. Sep. 6, 2024)); McDougall v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
No. 23-CV-168, 2023 WL 6445838, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2023) (quoting Ragone, 595 F.3d at
122) (same). If Plaintiffs object to the Carveout to the Delegation Clause, then they should not
have agreed to the Terms in the first instance. As Defendant argues, Plaintiffs could have
purchased their products elsewhere.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 26 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

27
D. The Carveout to the Delegation Clause does not violate
public policy or lead to absurd results
Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning public policy and absurd results merely repeat prior
arguments concerning piecemeal litigation and forum bouncing, and the Court declines to
otherwise address them. Plaintiffs argue the Carveout to the Delegation Clause violates core
public policies favoring single-forum resolution and efficient, cost-effective arbitration;
however, this ignores caselaw establishing the courts’ role with respect to the FAA and “the
fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract,” and therefore piecemeal litigation
is permitted if the contract demands it. (See Pls.’ Opp’n 16.) See Coinbase, 602 U.S. at 147
(quoting Rent-A-Center, 561 U.S. at 67); KPMG, 565 U.S. at 19 (“The [FAA] has been
interpreted to require that if a dispute presents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not, the
former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation.”); Davitashvili,
131 F.4th at 114 (“The [FAA] reflects both a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration and the
fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)). Plaintiffs similarly base their theory of absurd results on piecemeal litigation
and litigation in multiple forums, which courts allow when interpreting arbitration agreements.
(Pls. Mem. 17–18; Pls.’ Opp’n 16–17.) “Arbitration is a way to resolve those disputes — but
only those disputes — that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.” Coinbase, 602 U.S.
at 148 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will not force into arbitration
issues the parties did not consent to arbitrate. See Holick, 802 F.3d at 395 (“[A] party cannot be
required to submit to arbitration any dispute which [the party] has not agreed so to submit.”
(quoting JLM Indus., Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163, 171 (2d Cir. 2004))).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 27 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

28
ii. Challenges to the Process Arbitrator’s order
Having determined that the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is valid, the Court
addresses Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding (1) the Process Arbitrator’s order and (2) whether the
Court or an arbitrator must hear the enforceability challenges to the IDR Requirements.
1. The Court is bound by the Process Arbitrator’s ruling
Plaintiffs argue that the Court is not bound by the Process Arbitrator’s decision and
should review the issues de novo. (Pls.’ Mem. 8–10; Pls.’ Opp’n 7–11.) In support, Plaintiffs
argue that the parties’ disputes are “outside the jurisdiction of the Process Arbitrator,” (Pls.’
Mem. 9), because they involve “core merits determinations” including arbitrability,
enforceability, satisfaction, waiver and unconscionability, (Pls.’ Opp’n 9–11). Plaintiffs also
contend that their “due process rights may be violated if the Process Arbitrator had the power to
adjudicate gateway merits-based issues.” (Pls.’ Mem. 9.) Further, Plaintiffs argue that issue
preclusion does not bar their claims because only factual determinations of a Process Arbitrator
— akin to an administrative body — deserve preclusive effect, and the Process Arbitrator made a
“purely legal determination regarding the interpretation” of the Terms. (Pls.’ Opp’n 7–9.) In the
alternative, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant does not meet the required elements of issue
preclusion.16 (Id. at 7–8.) First, Plaintiffs argue the issues determined by the Process Arbitrator
are not identical to the issues in this case because the Process Arbitrator only made the
determination that the challenges to the IDR Conference requirement need to be heard by a court
prior to proceeding with arbitration and did not rule on any enforceability or satisfaction
challenges to the Terms. (Id. at 8.) Second, Plaintiffs argue they are not relitigating issues
because the Process Arbitrator did not “decide[]” any issues, only defer the questions to the
Court. (Id.) Third, Plaintiffs argue that the Process Arbitrator’s decision was not a valid and
16 Plaintiffs do not dispute that there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before the
Process Arbitrator. (Pls.’ Opp’n 7–8.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 28 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

29
final judgment on the merits because the Process Arbitrator merely directed the case to another
venue, and the Process Arbitrator exceeded her power since the issues should have been heard by
a Merits Arbitrator. (Id. at 8–9.)
Defendant argues that collateral estoppel fully applies to Plaintiffs’ arguments because
the issues are identical to those raised previously before the Process Arbitrator, and the issues
were fully and fairly litigated. (Def.’s Mem. 12–13.) In support, Defendant states that collateral
estoppel applies to issues resolved in arbitration and applies to arbitrators’ determinations of law
and fact. (Def.’s Reply 2–3.) In addition, Defendant argues that the Process Arbitrator’s ruling
determining its own jurisdiction was properly within the jurisdiction of the Process Arbitrator
according to the AAA rules because it involves a “[d]isputes over any applicable conditions
precedent” and, moreover, Plaintiffs consented to the Process Arbitrator deciding the issue.
(Def.’s Mem. 13–14 (alteration in original) (quoting AAA Mass Arb. Suppl. Rules) (stating, in
relevant part, “The Process Arbitrator shall have the authority to determine . . . [w]hether the
parties have met the [ ] filing requirements in the parties’ contract,” “[d]isputes over any
applicable conditions precedent,” and “[a]ny other issue(s) the parties agree in writing to submit
to the Process Arbitrator.”); Def.’s Reply 3 (quoting same).) Defendant states that the Process
Arbitrator’s ruling makes clear that the AAA, including a Merits Arbitrator, does not have
jurisdiction over the parties dispute over the satisfaction and enforceability of the IDR
Requirements, and this ruling “constitutes the determination of the AAA, and the Court has no
authority to reverse the AAA’s determination of its own jurisdiction.” (Def.’s Mem. 13–14;
Def.’s Reply 3.) Finally, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs may not challenge how the AAA
applies its own rules, including the decision to send the jurisdictional issue to a Process
Arbitrator over a Merits Arbitrator. (Def.’s Mem. 14.)
Under New York law, issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, bars the relitigation of
issues where “(1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 29 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

30
proceeding, and (2) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.” Oliver v. D’Amico, No. 22-979, 2024
WL 2013670, at *2 (2d Cir. May 7, 2024) (summary order) (quoting McKithen v. Brown, 481
F.3d 89, 105 (2d Cir. 2007)); Scuderi-Hunter v. Merklen, No. 23-542, 2024 WL 1005793, at *2
(2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2024) (summary order) (quoting Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422
F.3d 77, 94 (2d Cir. 2005)) (same); CIT Bank N.A. v. Donovan, 856 F. App’x 335, 337 (2d Cir.
Apr. 9, 2021) (quoting Hoblock, 422 F.3d at 93) (same); Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v.
GTR Source, LLC, 988 F.3d 634, 642 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Evans v. Ottimo, 469 F.3d 278,
281 (2d Cir. 2006)) (same); Cruz v. N.Y.C. Transit, No. 24-CV-89, 2025 WL 209598, at *9
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2025) (quoting Moccio v. N.Y. State Off. Of Ct. Admin., 95 F.3d 195, 200 (2d
Cir. 1996)) (same), report and recommendation adopted sub nom., Cruz v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. -
MTA, No. 24-CV-89, 2025 WL 618557 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2025), appeal dismissed sub nom.,
Cruz v. N.Y.C. Transit, MTA, No. 25-729, 2025 WL 2747900 (2d Cir. July 24, 2025). The
collateral estoppel analysis under New York law is essentially the same as under federal law.
See Postlewaite v. McGraw-Hill, 333 F.3d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Under either federal law or
New York State law, collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the relitigation of an issue that
was raised, litigated, and actually decided by a judgment in a prior proceeding, regardless of
whether the two suits are based on the same cause of action.”); Koch v. Bobcat of N.Y., Inc., No.
19-CV-7081, 2025 WL 746023, at *5 n.10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2025) (“[E]ven if the [c]ourt were
to engage in the collateral estoppel analysis applied under New York law, the result here would
be the same.”); M.J. Woods, Inc. v. Conopco, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 576, 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
(“The doctrine of collateral estoppel — also known as issue preclusion — operates almost
identically under federal and New York State law . . . .” (citing Postlewaite, 333 F.3d at 47–48)).
Under federal law, the four elements of collateral estoppel are: “(1) the issues in both
proceedings must be identical; (2) the issue in the prior proceeding must have been actually
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 30 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

31
litigated and actually decided; (3) there must have been a full and fair opportunity for litigation
in the prior proceeding; and (4) the issue previously litigated must have been necessary to
support a valid and final judgment on the merits.” Clark v. Hanley, 89 F.4th 78, 100 n.28 (2d
Cir. 2023) (quoting SEC v. Monarch Funding Corp., 192 F.3d 295, 304 (2d Cir. 1999)); Bifolck
v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 936 F.3d 74, 79–80 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Faulkner v. Nat’l
Geographic Enters. Inc., 409 F.3d 26, 37 (2d Cir. 2005)) (same); United States v. Dominguez,
712 F. App’x 100, 102 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Gelb v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 38, 44 (2d
Cir. 1986)) (same).
“It is settled law that the doctrine of issue preclusion is applicable to issues resolved by
an earlier arbitration.” CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., 850 F.3d 58, 77 (2d
Cir. 2017) (quoting Khandhar v. Elfenbein, 943 F.2d 244, 247 (2d Cir. 1991)); Ben-Zvi v. Bo Hi
Pak, No. 10-CV-9588, 2011 WL 7095422, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011) (“It is well-settled
that collateral estoppel applies to issues resolved in arbitration if there has been a final judgment
on the merits.” (citing M.J. Woods, Inc. v. Conopco, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 576, 580 (S.D.N.Y.
2003))), aff’d, 510 F. App’x 2 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Abele v. City of Albany, 186 N.Y.S.3d
389, 392 (App. Div. 2023) (“The [collateral estoppel] doctrine ‘appl[ies] to arbitration awards
and preclude[s] subsequent litigation of a claim or issue decided in a prior arbitration against a
party.’” (second and third alterations in original) (first quoting Matter of Anonymous v. N.Y. State
Just. Ctr. for People, 105 N.Y.S.3d 163, 165 (App. Div. 2019); and then citing Holloway v. City
of Albany, 93 N.Y.S.3d 725, 726–75 (App. Div. 2019))); Matthews v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp.,
212 N.Y.S.3d 913 (Sup. Ct. 2024) (“Preclusive effect has been given to issues resolved in prior
arbitration proceedings.” (citing Martin v. Geico Direct Ins., 818 N.Y.S.2d 265 (App. Div.
2006))). However, an arbitration decision may affect issue preclusion in later litigation “[only] if
the proponent can show with clarity and certainty that the same issues were resolved.” CBF
Industria de Gusa S/A, 850 F.3d at 77 (alteration in original) (quoting Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 31 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

32
v. 1109580 Ontario, Inc., 409 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2005)); Postlewaite, 333 F.3d at 49 (“‘[T]he
party asserting preclusion bears the burden of showing with clarity and certainty what was
determined by the prior judgment,’ and ‘[i]ssue preclusion will apply only if it is quite clear that
this requirement has been met.’” (alteration in original) (quoting BBS Norwalk One, Inc. v.
Raccolta, Inc., 117 F.3d 674, 677 (2d Cir. 1997))); see also Franklin v. Liberty Lines Transit,
Inc., No. 13-CV-6701, 2016 WL 1078283, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2016) (applying four
elements of issue preclusion under federal law to issues litigated and resolved in arbitration),
aff’d, 685 F. App’x 41 (2d Cir. 2017); Ben-Zvi, 2011 WL 7095422, at *2 (same); Rosenthal v.
Nierenberg, No. 09-CV-8237, 2010 WL 3290994, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010) (applying
issue preclusion under New York law to issues determined in an arbitration ruling). In addition,
a court must ensure “the application of the doctrine is fair.” CBF Industria de Gusa S/A, 850
F.3d at 77 (quoting Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., 409 F.3d at 91); see Lobban v. Cromwell Towers
Apartments, Ltd. P’ship, 345 F. Supp. 3d 334, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“While collateral estoppel
may be applied to an issue resolved in arbitration, application ‘may be problematic because
arbitrators are not required to provide an explanation for their decision.’” (quoting Postlewaite,
333 F.3d at 48)).
The Court finds issue preclusion applies to the issue of whether the AAA or the Court has
jurisdiction under the Terms to decide disputes involving satisfaction and enforceability of
Section 19.2 preconditions to arbitration because this issue was raised, litigated, and actually
decided clearly by the Process Arbitrator. See CBF Industria de Gusa S/A, 850 F.3d at 77
(discussing application of issue preclusion to arbitration order). (See AAA Order dated Sep. 19,
2024; AAA Scheduling Order dated July 26, 2024.) First, the parties briefed the issue of
jurisdiction over disputes involving the satisfaction and enforceability of Section 19.2
preconditions to arbitration. (See AAA Scheduling Order dated July 26, 2024.) The Process
Arbitrator determined that the AAA does “not have jurisdiction over th[e] dispute” because
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 32 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

33
Section 19.7’s Delegation Clause carves out disputes involving the satisfaction of any condition
precedent and confers jurisdiction over those disputes to a court, including enforceability
challenges. (AAA Order dated Sep. 19, 2024.) The Process Arbitrator did not make any
determination on the merits with respect to the parties’ enforceability or satisfaction challenges
to the Terms, nor did the Process Arbitrator “defer” on the question of jurisdiction, as Plaintiffs
contend. (See Pls.’ Opp’n 10.) Rather, the Process Arbitrator stated that the parties’ dispute is
for the court to decide because “the AAA has no jurisdiction over the dispute unless and until”
the “parties [] engage in the IDR [C]onference in good faith,” as required by Section 19.2.17
(AAA Order dated Sep. 19, 2024.) Second, Plaintiffs do not dispute that they had a full and fair
opportunity to litigate, and the Court does not find any evidence to the contrary in the parties’
briefing papers and attachments and the Process Arbitrator’s six-page order, which provided
reasoning and a justification for her decision. (See id.) Therefore, Plaintiffs are precluded from
relitigating whether the challenges to enforceability and satisfaction of Section 19.2
preconditions to arbitration are for the Court or an arbitrator to determine as the Process
Arbitrator decided that the Court must hear the issue.
17 The Court declines to consider the arguments regarding whether the Process Arbitrator
exceeded her jurisdiction when she determined the Court must hear the parties’ arguments over
Plaintiffs’ satisfaction of the IDR Requirements, including whether Plaintiffs are excused from
compliance because the provision is unenforceable. See Frazier v. X Corp., 155 F.4th 87, 97 n.7
(2d Cir. 2025) (“The Supreme Court has observed that arbitrators and arbitral bodies are
‘comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule[s]’ and are thus ‘better able to
interpret and to apply [them].’” (alterations in original) (quoting Howsam v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 80 (2002))); see also Jones v. Starz Ent., LLC, 129 F.4th 1176, 1184
(9th Cir. 2025) (“It strains credulity to believe that it is the business of a federal court to second-
guess an independent arbitration provider’s application of its own rule . . . .”). Under the Mass
Arbitrator Supplementary Rule MA-6, the AAA may appoint a Process Arbitrator to determine
disputes over “any other issue,” determined by the parties, (AAA Mass Arb. Suppl. Rules), and
as stated supra at n.9, the parties consented to the Process Arbitrator resolving the issues stated
in the Scheduling Order. (See Joint Statement of Issues.) Therefore, the parties are bound by the
Process Arbitrator’s determination, and the Court will not second-guess the Process Arbitrator’s
application of AAA rules.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 33 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

34
2. The Process Arbitrator’s order correctly determined that the
Court has jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute regarding
satisfaction of conditions precedent to arbitration
In any event, the Court reviews the parties’ arguments and agrees with the Process
Arbitrator’s determination that the Court has jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute regarding the
enforceability and satisfaction of Section 19.2 preconditions to arbitration.
Plaintiffs argue the Court should compel arbitration on the threshold arbitrability question
of whether the IDR provision is enforceable. (Pls.’ Opp’n 11–14.) First, Plaintiffs contend that
the Terms’ incorporation of the AAA’s rules “gives the arbitrator jurisdiction to decide the
enforceability of any pre-arbitration condition.” (Pls.’ Mem. 10.) Second, Plaintiffs contend that
the Terms “clearly and unmistakably delegate[]” the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator
including “‘any dispute’ about the ‘interpretation,’ ‘enforceability,’ and ‘scope,’ of ‘any portion’
of the [Terms].” (Pls.’ Opp’n 12 (first citing Hu litigation; and then citing Terms § 19.7).)
Plaintiffs argue that the plain language of the Terms also requires an arbitrator to hear whether
Defendant waived its right to enforce the IDR preconditions to arbitration because “caselaw
overwhelmingly supports that questions of procedural arbitrability, including waiver, are for the
arbitrator.” (Pls.’ Mem. 12–13.) Third, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant makes inconsistent
arguments in the Hu litigation about whether enforceability disputes involving any part of the
agreement are delegated exclusively to the arbitrator, and Defendant “cannot have [their] cake
and eat it, too.” (Id. at 11 (quoting In re Ring LLC Priv. Litig., No. 19-CV-10899, 2021 WL
4557222, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021).) Fourth, Plaintiffs state their enforceability challenge to
the IDR provision is not an affirmative defense to satisfaction, but even if it were, it should still
be decided by an arbitrator because “arbitration agreements may validly assign certain issues to
an arbitrator and others to a court — even if it results in piecemeal litigation.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 12.)
Fifth, Plaintiffs argue that disputes over conditions precedent are not always for the court, as
Defendant contends. (Id. at 12–13.)
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 34 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

35
Defendant argues first, the Court must decide the parties’ IDR provision dispute because
the parties’ dispute is “fundamentally about non-compliance with a condition precedent, which
the [D]elegation [C]lause carves out for a court to decide.” (Def.’s Mem. 15–17.) In addition,
Defendant contends that “while the Terms generally delegate disputes to the arbitrator,” Section
19.7’s broad language carves out “all Disputes about whether either party has satisfied any
condition precedent to arbitration” and this is “inclusive of any defenses a claimant asserts for
why they did not satisfy the provision.” (Def.’s Reply 4 (quoting Terms § 19.7).) Second,
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs raise their enforceability challenges to the IDR provision,
unconscionability, wavier and impossibility, “as [] defense[s] within a broader dispute about
whether they have complied with the IDR [P]rocess,” and courts “regularly entertain challenges
to the enforceability of a contractual provision as a defense to alleged non-compliance with the
provision.” (Def.’s Mem. 16; see Def.’s Reply 4.) Third, Defendants contend that “requiring
disputes over compliance with a condition precedent to be litigated in court makes eminent
sense” because New York courts “routinely bar parties from proceeding to arbitration until they
have satisfied the condition precedent — and, as a corollary, they routinely require issues of
compliance to be resolved by a court.” (Def.’s Mem. 15.) Fourth, Defendant argues if Plaintiffs
are allowed to proceed to arbitration in this case without first satisfying the IDR Requirements,
then this would “fundamentally deprive” it of its rights under the Terms. (Id. at 16–17.)
The Court explained in Ziboukh and Hu that the arbitration agreement delegated
questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the argument that the arbitration agreement
is unconscionable because “section [19.7] of the Terms provides ‘clear and unmistakable
evidence’ that the parties agreed to arbitrate” questions of arbitrability. Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d
at 389–92, 292 n.16 (quoting Hu, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 298). Section 19.7 provides that the
arbitrator has “exclusive authority” to resolve disputes “arising out of or related to the
interpretation or application of the [a]rbitration [a]greement, including the enforceability,
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 35 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

36
revocability, scope, or validity of the [a]rbitration [a]greement,” but Section 19.7 is subject to a
qualifying provision, the Carveout to the Delegation Clause, which exempts from arbitration “all
[d]isputes about whether either party has satisfied any condition precedent to arbitration.”
(Terms § 19.7.) The Second Circuit has held that when “a broad arbitration clause is subject to a
qualifying provision that at least arguably covers the present dispute,” the parties have not
provided “clear and unmistakable evidence” of their intent to arbitrate arbitrability or that dispute
more specifically.18 DDK Hotels, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 6 F.4th 308, 319 (2d Cir. 2021)
(quoting NASDAQ OMX Grp., Inc. v. UBS Sec., LLC, 770 F.3d 1010, 1031–32 (2d Cir. 2014)).
In this case, the parties submitted their dispute to the Process Arbitrator over whether
enforceability challenges to the IDR Requirements are subject to arbitration, and the Process
Arbitrator determined that the dispute fell within the scope of the Carveout to the Delegation
Clause and therefore the Court must hear it. (AAA Order dated Sep. 19, 2024.) The Court
agrees with the Process Arbitrator’s determination that the Court must determine the parties’
disputes involving satisfaction of conditions precedent to arbitration. “If the contract is silent . . .
courts presume that the parties intend . . . arbitrators, not courts, to decide disputes about the
meaning and application of procedural preconditions for the use of arbitration,” including, e.g.,
“claims of ‘waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.’” BG Grp., PLC v. Republic of
Argentina, 572 U.S. 25, 34–35 (2014) (first citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537
U.S. 79, 86 (2002); and then quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp., 460 U.S. at 25)). In this case,
18 In Ziboukh and Hu, the Court did not decide the question of whether disputes
involving issues excluded from arbitration under the Carveout to the Delegation Clause, such as
disputes over satisfaction of conditions precedent to arbitration, should be heard by the Court or
by an arbitrator under the Terms. Ziboukh, 795 F. Supp. 3d at 392 n.16 (“Plaintiffs do not
separately challenge the class action waiver provision [excluded from arbitration under the
Carveout to the Delegation Clause] and thus their claims are not excluded from arbitration on
that basis.”). Accordingly, the Court’s holdings in Ziboukh and Hu have no bearing on the
Court’s consideration of enforceability challenges to Section 19.2 preconditions to arbitration in
this case.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 36 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

37
the arbitration agreement is not silent, and the Terms clearly stipulate that the Court has
jurisdiction over “all [d]isputes” involving satisfaction of conditions precedent to arbitration.19
(See Terms § 19.7.) Plaintiffs raise their enforceability challenges of unconscionability and
waiver as defenses to their noncompliance with the IDR preconditions to arbitration. See EMA
Fin., LLC v. 5Barz Int’l, Inc., No. 18-CV-4995, 2019 WL 8503357, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 18,
2019) (“Under New York law, unconscionability is an affirmative defense.”); Colonial Funding
Network, Inc. for TVT Cap., LLC v. Epazz, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 274, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)
(“Under New York law, unconscionability is an affirmative defense to the enforcement of a
contract.” (citation omitted)); see also Berger v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No. 22-CV-7374, 2024
WL 4107243, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 6, 2024) (“Whether there is a contractual waiver of a
19 Because the Carveout to the Delegation Clause addresses preconditions to arbitration,
Plaintiffs’ arguments that procedural questions are usually delegated under arbitration
agreements to an arbitrator are without merit in this case. First, Plaintiffs’ argument that
“caselaw overwhelmingly supports that questions of procedural arbitrability, including waiver,
are for the arbitrator,” ignores the Delegation Clause’s explicit carve out of disputes over
satisfaction of preconditions to arbitration. (See Pls.’ Mem. 12–13.) Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602
U.S. 143, 145 (2024) (“Arbitration is a matter of contract and consent . . . [and] disputes are
subject to arbitration if, and only if, the parties actually agreed to arbitrate those disputes.”) In
this case, the parties did not agree to arbitrate disputes over satisfaction of preconditions to
arbitration under the Carveout to the Delegation Clause.
Second, Plaintiffs’ argument that the “incorporation of the AAA’s rules in [the] Terms
gives the arbitrator jurisdiction to decide the enforceability of any pre-arbitration condition” is
incorrect. (Pls.’ Mem. 10.) Incorporation of AAA rules, “standing alone, does not suffice to
establish the requisite clear and unmistakable inference of intent to arbitrate arbitrability.” DDK
Hotels, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 6 F.4th 308, 318 (2d Cir. 2021) (“[I]n evaluating the
import of incorporation of the AAA Rules (or analogous rules) into an arbitration agreement,
context matters. Incorporation of such rules into an arbitration agreement does not, per se,
demonstrate clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate threshold
questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator where other aspects of the contract create ambiguity as
to the parties’ intent.”) (collecting cases); B & R Supermarket, Inc. v. Visa Inc., No. 17-CV-2738,
2024 WL 3823096, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2024) (“[T]he Second Circuit has explained,
incorporation of rules permitting an arbitrator to decide arbitrability is insufficient when there are
doubts as to the scope of the arbitration provision’s applicability to the instant dispute.”), appeal
docketed, No. 24-2344 (2d Cir. Sep. 6, 2024). In this case, the incorporation of the AAA rules
alone is insufficient to establish that questions of procedural arbitrability must be heard in
arbitration when the Carveout to the Delegation Clause clarifies that disputes over satisfaction of
preconditions to arbitration are for the Court to decide. See DDK Hotels, LLC, 6 F.4th at 318
(finding the same).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 37 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

38
plaintiff’s legal rights is an affirmative defense under . . . New York law.”); U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n
v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12-CV-6811, 2014 WL 2199428, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2014)
(“Waiver[ is] an affirmative defense to breach of contract actions under . . . New York law.” ).
Plaintiffs’ argument that if the Court concludes unconscionability is an affirmative defense, then
it should nevertheless “be decided by an arbitrator,” (Pls.’ Mem. 17), because arbitration
agreements “may validly assign certain issues to an arbitrator and others to a court” is
unpersuasive, (Pls.’ Opp’n 12). Plaintiffs assert their conscionability challenge to the IDR
preconditions to arbitration to support their contention that additional IDR Conferences are not
required, (Pls.’ Mem. 19–22), thus asserting a defense to their failure to satisfy the IDR
Conference requirement. See EMA Fin., LLC, 2019 WL 8503357, at *7 (stating
unconscionability is an affirmative defense). As discussed supra, the Court has jurisdiction over
disputes involving satisfaction of preconditions to arbitration, including defenses to satisfaction.
The Court will therefore consider Plaintiffs’ arguments as defenses when determining whether
Plaintiffs have satisfied the IDR preconditions to arbitration below.
iii. Challenges to the IDR Requirements
The Court addresses Plaintiffs’ arguments that the (1) IDR Requirements are
unconscionable, (2) Defendant waived its right to enforce the IDR Conference requirement, and
(3) additional IDR Conferences are futile or impossible. The Court also considers Plaintiffs’
arguments that they have satisfied the IDR Conference precondition.
1. The IDR Requirements are not unconscionable
First, Plaintiffs argue that the IDR Requirements are unconscionable because the IDR
Notice requirement is one-sided and “imposes no analogous requirement on [Defendant] to
preview defenses it may assert in arbitration.” (Pls.’ Mem. 19–20; Pls.’ Opp’n 18.) In support,
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant uses the IDR Process to “gather information” and then use that
information at the IDR Conference to “inappropriately try to chill the consumers with threats of
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 38 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

39
sanctions should they proceed with their claims,” but Defendant is not required to provide any
information to the consumer during the IDR Requirements and provides “boilerplate statements
to consumers.” (Pls.’ Mem. 20, 22.) Second, Plaintiffs argue that the IDR Conferences are one-
sided because they require consumers to attend in person, even if represented by counsel, but
Defendant “has no such requirement.” (Id. at 20–21; see Pls.’ Opp’n 19.) Plaintiffs argue that
Defendant only appeared at the IDR Conferences with counsel and “a low-level customer service
representative who lacked any authority” while Plaintiffs “had to appear personally with full
decision-making authority.” (Pls.’ Opp’n 19–20 n.11.) Third, Plaintiffs argue the IDR
Conferences are unconscionable because they do not involve a neutral mediator. (Pls.’ Mem. 20;
Pls.’ Opp’n 19.) Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that the IDR Conferences “function[] as a bottleneck to
resolution of the claims,” because they are individualized, serve no other purpose than to
frustrate and delay relief, and Defendant “can block arbitration at will” by saying the
preconditions to arbitration were not satisfied. (Pls.’ Mem. 21; Pls.’ Opp’n 20–21.) Fifth,
Plaintiffs argue that the IDR Conference requirement is prohibitively expensive and an “unfair
scheme designed to delay consumers’ justice” because “[i]t forces consumers to file their claims
in both arbitration and in court when [Defendant] undoubtedly challenges whether the [IDR]
[C]onference condition has been satisfied by the consumer,” even when “a consumer attempts in
good faith to engage in the [IDR] Conference.” (Pls.’ Mem. 21–22.)
Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding burdens on individual
consumers to comply with the IDR Requirements is “misdirected” and actually addresses the
burdens of Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy in attempting to arbitrate claims on a collective basis,
which is prohibited under Section 19.4 of the Terms, the class action waiver provision. (Def.’s
Mem. 19; see Def.’s Reply 1.) Defendant also argues that the “burden on each individual
Plaintiff” is what matters, and the IDR provision only requires “a short phone call to see if the
parties can reach an agreement,” but if no agreement is reached, “the initiating party is free to
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 39 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

40
immediately proceed to arbitration.” (Def.’s Mem. 20 (citing Terms § 19.2).) Defendant also
contends that other courts have upheld similar IDR Requirements. (Id. (citing Bielski v.
Coinbase, Inc., 87 F.4th 1003 (9th Cir. 2023).) Second, Defendant argues that the purpose of the
IDR Requirements is not to “preview” Plaintiffs’ claims or collect evidence, but confer in good
faith, and a claimant may likewise ask questions of Defendant and decline to answer questions
“if they feel it intrudes into their litigation strategy.” (Id. at 21–22; Def.’s Reply 6.) In addition,
Defendant argues that the IDR Requirements are not one-sided because they “appl[y] equally if
Temu were to bring an arbitration demand.” (Def.’s Reply 6.) Third, Defendant argues that a
neutral arbitrator is not required by the law and would defeat the informal nature of the IDR
Process. (Def.’s Mem. 22.) Fourth, Defendant maintains that any allegations of prohibitive
costs or delays from “bottlenecking” are the result of Plaintiffs’ litigation strategy and not the
IDR Process.20 (Id.) Fifth, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ allegations of Defendant’s alleged
bad faith do not address “whether the IDR Requirement is unconscionable, but [address] whether
[Defendant] complied with it in those five conferences.” (Def.’s Reply 7 (emphasis omitted).)
As discussed supra in Section II.b.i.2, the IDR Requirements are not unconscionable
under New York law because the IDR Requirements apply to both parties, and Plaintiffs face no
prejudice in having to comply with both the IDR Notice and IDR Conference requirements.21
20 Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs’ argument is “hard to take seriously” because
the Retainer Agreement of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Kind Law, contains a “more burdensome”
informal dispute resolution compared to the IDR Process at issue in this case. (Def.’s Mem. 23
(emphasis omitted); Def.’s Reply 5, 7 (emphasis omitted).) The Court does not address this
argument because it is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis of the Terms at issue in this case, and
Defendant does not provide any basis for the Court to consider the Retainer Agreement of
Plaintiffs’ counsel.
21 As discussed supra in Section II.b, the parties agree there is a valid arbitration
agreement, and Plaintiffs do not present any argument that they lacked meaningful choice or
notice in consenting to the Terms. Accordingly, the Court finds the arbitration agreement is not
procedurally unconscionable. See Ragone v. Atl. Video at Manhattan Ctr., 595 F.3d 115, 122
(2d Cir. 2010); Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of N.Y. v. Baker, 778 F. App’x 24, 26 (2d Cir.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 40 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

41
A. The IDR Requirements are mutual
Section 19.2 imposes impartial, mutual requirements on the parties that apply equally
during the IDR Process. Although Plaintiffs contend that the IDR Notice is one-sided, and is
only required of the “the party initiating a [d]ispute,” it applies to either Temu or a consumer
when they initiate a dispute. (Pls.’ Mem. 19–20; Terms § 19.2.) Section 19.2 also requires
mutual participation by Temu and the complainant via the telephone or video conference as a
“good faith effort” to informally resolve claims prior to proceeding to arbitration, and counsel for
either side is optional. (Terms § 19.2.) In addition, either side may challenge the satisfaction of
the conference requirement, as both parties in this case challenge the “good faith” of the other
side during the IDR Conferences. (See id.) While Plaintiffs contend a complainant must attend
with “full decision-making capability,” and “in person,” (Pls.’ Mem. 25; Pls.’ Opp’n 19–20),
unlike Defendant, Plaintiffs’ argument is not supported by the record. Each side must attend,
and resolution is not required as a result of the IDR Conference — the parties can proceed to
arbitration after sixty days from the receipt of the IDR Notice if a resolution is not reached
during the IDR Process. (Terms §§ 19.4–19.5.) The components to the IDR Process apply
equally, and as a result, do not render Section 19.2 substantively unconscionable. See Whalen v.
NBA Props., Inc., No. 25-CV-62, 2025 WL 3013144, at *3–5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025) (holding
a nearly identical IDR Process was not “substantively unconscionable” under California and
New York law because the pre-dispute process requirements were bilateral); see also B & R
Supermarket, Inc., 2024 WL 3823096, at *14 (finding arbitration provision incorporating rules
from AAA and from Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”) limiting
discovery was not substantively unconscionable because it applied equally to the parties);
Cunningham v. CVS Health Corp., No. 23-CV-1328, 2024 WL 2867303, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June
2019); Pabon v. HRB Digital LLC, No. 23-CV-5363, 2025 WL 2254008, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.
7, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 41 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

42
4, 2024) (finding arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because the FAA
rules of discovery applied equally to both parties); McDougall, 2023 WL 6445838, at *6
(concluding that the terms of the arbitration agreement were not substantively unconscionable
because the agreement “bind[ed] both parties equally to arbitration” (citing Suqin Zhu v.
Hakkasan NYC LLC, 291 F. Supp. 3d 378, 391–92 (S.D.N.Y. 2017))); Doe #1 v. Coll. Bd., 440
F. Supp. 3d 349, 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (same). In Whalen, the plaintiffs sought to avoid
arbitration by arguing the mandatory pre-arbitration resolution process, which included an email
notice of dispute, conference requirements and a sixty-day delay from the date of the notice of
dispute to engage in informal resolution, in the defendant’s terms of use was unconscionable.22
2025 WL 3013144, at *3–4. The Whalen court found the pre-arbitration resolution process was
not substantively unconscionable because the requirements were bilateral, meaning the defendant
must also comply with them if it sought to bring a dispute, and the plaintiffs did not face
prejudice in complying with the process. Id. Like in Whalen, the IDR Requirements in this case
are bilateral, applying equally to Defendant, and therefore are not “unreasonably favorable to one
party.” Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. of N.Y., 778 F. App’x at 26. Further, in finding the pre-
arbitration dispute resolution process was not unconscionable under New York law, the court in
Whalen found persuasive that courts in the Second Circuit dismiss cases for failure to comply
22 Plaintiffs argue reliance on Whalen v. NBA Properties, Inc. is misplaced because the
plaintiffs in that case were trying to avoid arbitration, while Plaintiffs in this case are moving to
compel arbitration. (Pls.’ Ltr. Re Notice of Suppl. Auth., Docket Entry No. 22 (citing No. 25-
CV-6125, 2025 WL 3013144 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025).) In addition, Plaintiffs argue against
reliance on Whalen because the arbitration agreement in Whalen did not include an equivalent
carveout to delegation which Plaintiffs argue “significantly exacerbates the unconscionability” in
this case because Defendant can “unilaterally trigger” the Carveout to the Delegation Clause by
asserting “the conference requirement was not satisfied.” (Id. (citing Whalen, 2025 WL
3013144).) As stated supra in Section II.b.i.2.A, the Carveout to the Delegation Clause is not
unconscionable due to piecemeal litigation as the parties have equal access to a court or an
arbitrator depending on the issue. Neither is the Carveout to the Delegation Clause “unilaterally”
triggered as Plaintiffs contend because either party can challenge the satisfaction of the IDR
Requirements, not just Defendant. Accordingly, the Court finds Whalen persuasive even though
the plaintiffs in Whalen sought to avoid arbitration.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 42 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

43
with a contractual condition precedent when the contract included a dispute resolution process
prior to commencing litigation. 2025 WL 3013144, at *4 (first citing ISS Facility Servs., Inc. v.
Fedcap Rehab. Servs., Inc., No. 20-CV-6591, 2021 WL 2784550, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021);
and then citing Merch. House Inc. v. Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass’n, Inc.,
No. 12-CV-6982, 2013 WL 3270331, at *1–4 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2013) (dismissing breach of
contract claim for failure to satisfy the contract’s pre-litigation dispute resolution requirement)).
The Whalen court’s reasoning applies to this case because the IDR Process is a condition
precedent to arbitration agreed to by the parties under the Terms.
B. The IDR Requirements are not prejudicial
Plaintiffs’ arguments that the IDR Process is one-sided because Defendant can “preview
defenses [Plaintiffs] may assert in arbitration,” and unilaterally gather information are not
sufficient to prove unconscionability because the IDR Requirements are not prejudicial. (Pls.’
Mem. 18–19; Pls.’ Opp’n 18.) Even though only one side must provide an IDR Notice, Plaintiffs
need not reveal substantive elements of their claims beyond what is necessary to give a
“description of the [d]ispute” and engage in a “good faith effort.” (Terms § 19.2.) Such details,
while not fully mutual, do not result in prejudice to the complainant’s claims and therefore are
not “so grossly unreasonable” as to be unconscionable. Ragone, 595 F.3d at 121; see Whalen,
2025 WL 3013144, at *4 (finding the pre-arbitration dispute process may provide a “free peek”
into plaintiffs’ claims but were “minimal burdens” that were a “far cry” from unconscionability
under California law and not unconscionable under New York law); see also Bielski, 87 F.4th at
1014 (upholding pre-arbitration dispute resolution process requiring the complainant to contact
customer support, fill out a written complaint form, and wait for the defendant Coinbase’s
response prior to proceeding with arbitration claims despite only applying to users’ claims). In
an instructive case, the Ninth Circuit in Bielski concluded that the non-mutual pre-arbitration
informal dispute process with a notice provision was not substantively unconscionable despite
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 43 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

44
potentially offering a “free peek” because “something more than the absence of mutuality” was
required for unconscionability.23 87 F.4th at 1014–15. In reaching their conclusion, the Bielski
court emphasized the lack of time restrictions on the ability of plaintiffs to bring their claims,
which other Ninth Circuit courts found sufficient for finding substantive unconscionability when
combined with a lack of mutuality and an unfair dispute resolution process. Id. at 1015 (finding
informal dispute process was not unconscionable because, inter alia, there was no time
restrictions on bringing a claim) (first citing Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 120 Cal. App.
4th 1267, 1282–83 (Ct. App.2004); and then citing Pokorny v. Quixtar, Inc., 601 F.3d 987, 998
(9th Cir. 2010)); see also Whalen, 2025 WL 3013144, at *4 (finding a “slight delay” of up to
sixty days from the pre-arbitration dispute resolution process was not substantively
unconscionable and no additional time constraints on claims). The courts in both Nyulassy and
Pokorny found the time restrictions on the plaintiff’s ability to bring a claim an important factor
for unconscionability. Nyulassy, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 1282–83 (finding unconscionability
because, inter alia, there was a time restriction of 180 days to bring a claim); Pokorny, 601 F.3d
at 999–1000 (finding unconscionability because, inter alia, there were non-mutual time restraints
where the plaintiff could not initiate arbitration until ninety days after the claim arose and the
plaintiff had maximum two years to initiate)). Like in Bielski and Whalen, the IDR Process in
this case does not provide a time limitation on when Plaintiffs may initiate claims, (see Terms §
19.2 (tolling statute of limitations and filing fee deadlines during IDR Process)); instead, the IDR
Process includes a sixty-day delay in proceeding to arbitration from the receipt of the IDR Notice
23 Plaintiffs argue the pre-arbitration dispute process in Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc. is not
analogous because it is comparatively less burdensome and only includes a complaint form that
is more akin to the Terms’ IDR Notice rather than the IDR Conference. (Pls.’ Opp’n 20 (citing
87 F.4th 1003, 1014 (9th Cir. 2023).) Despite the differing requirements, Bielski is instructive
because both the informal pre-arbitration processes in Bielski and in this case require (1)
individualized relief and (2) the plaintiffs to provide insight into their claims prior to proceeding
to arbitration. See Bielski, 87 F.4th at 1013–14.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 44 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

45
that is not overly prejudicial. (Id. § 19.5) Whalen, 2025 WL 3013144, at *3–4 (finding sixty-
day delay from the date of the notice of dispute to engage in informal resolution conscionable).
Accordingly, the Court finds the IDR Process is not substantively unconscionable even though
only one side must provide an IDR Notice because it does not grossly prejudice Plaintiffs. See
Ragone, 595 F.3d at 121.
C. A neutral mediator is not required
The absence of a neutral mediator does not render the IDR Process substantively
unconscionable because the parties will have a neutral arbitrator upon completion of the IDR
Process, and the IDR Process is nondispositive. See Chalmers v. City of New York, No. 20-CV-
3389, 2024 WL 6837879, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2024) (“[A] mediator’s involvement in
settlement negotiations can help demonstrate their fairness.” (quoting In re GSE Bonds Antitrust
Litig., 414 F. Supp. 3d 686, 693 (S.D.N.Y. 2019))); Zink v. First Niagara Bank, N.A., No. 13-
CV-1076, 2016 WL 7473278, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2016) (“The ‘involvement of an
experienced mediator is a strong indicator of procedural fairness.’” (quoting Chambery v. Tuxedo
Junction Inc., No. 12-CV-6539, 2014 WL 3725157, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014))). To
support their claim that the absence of a neutral mediator makes the IDR Process
unconscionable, Plaintiffs cite to the Ninth Circuit case, Nyulassy, where the court found the
arbitration clause of an employment agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its
unilateral nature and the lack of a neutral mediator. 120 Cal. App. 4th at 1282–83. The Nyulassy
court reasoned that because only employees had to arbitrate employment claims, not the
employer-defendant, “requiring plaintiff to submit to an employer-controlled dispute resolution
mechanism (i.e., one without a neutral mediator)” provided a unilateral advantage to the
defendant. Id. In contrast, as the Court discusses above in Sections II.b.iii.1.A and II.b.iii.1.B,
the IDR Process in this case applies mutually, and the preview of a plaintiff’s claim does not
unduly prejudice the plaintiff. In addition, the arbitration agreement in Nyulassy lacked a neutral
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 45 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

46
mediator during the entire arbitration process, while in this case, Plaintiffs have access to a
neutral arbitrator after completing the pre-arbitration informal dispute resolution process. See id.
The presence of a neutral arbitrator after the IDR Process once the claims proceed to arbitration
demonstrates procedural fairness, and Plaintiffs provide no support to show that the lack of a
neutral arbitrator during the informal part of the dispute resolution process is unconscionable.
See Zink, 2016 WL 7473278, at *2.
D. Plaintiffs fail to show the IDR Process bottlenecks
claims
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the IDR Process “functions as a bottleneck to
resolution of the claims,” (Pls.’ Mem. 21; Pls.’ Opp’n 20), beyond requiring individualized relief
and minimal delays, neither of which are unconscionable. As stated above, the IDR Process’s
sixty-day wait to proceed to arbitration is not grossly favorable to one side, and either party can
challenge satisfaction of the conditions precedent to arbitration. See Whalen, 2025 WL 3013144,
at *3–4 (finding pre-arbitration process was not substantively unconscionable because the
requirements were bilateral). To the extent Plaintiffs challenge the requirement of individual
relief, Plaintiffs do not dispute the Terms’ class action waiver,24 nor is requiring individualized
relief unconscionable. See Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 344, 352 (concluding that the FAA permits
class action waivers); Vorburger v. Perfect Moving & Storage LLC, No. 25-CV-6387, 2025 WL
3653384, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025) (“In New York, ‘a contractual proscription against
class actions is neither unconscionable nor violative of public policy.’” (quoting Horton v. Dow
Jones & Co., 804 F. App’x 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2020))); Tsadilas v. Providian Nat. Bank, 786
N.Y.S.2d 478 (App. Div. 2004) (enforcing class action waiver because, “[u]nder New York law,
a contractual proscription against class actions . . . is neither unconscionable nor violative of
24 Because Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity of the class action waiver, the Court
does not address it.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 46 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

47
public policy” (second alteration in original) (citation omitted)). Further, Plaintiffs provide no
support to demonstrate that the IDR Conference requirement itself is unconscionable. Rather,
Plaintiffs cite to numerous Ninth Circuit decisions where pre-arbitration dispute processes in the
employment context were found unconscionable for far greater, non-mutual hurdles. (See Pls.’
Opp’n 19 (first citing McKinney v. Bonilla, No. 07-CV-2373, 2010 WL 2817179, at *7–8 (S.D.
Cal. July 16, 2010) (finding pre-arbitration dispute resolution requirements substantively
unconscionable where employees had a thirty-day deadline to report disputes from when the
claim arose and only employers were allowed counsel); then citing Pokorny, 601 F.3d at 999
(finding alternative dispute resolution requirements prior to arbitration substantively
unconscionable because the employer-defendant controlled the dispute process, had “the
unilateral right to issue a final decision accepting, rejecting, or modifying the recommendation”
from a review board, and the employee-plaintiff had several time restrictions on bringing a claim
but employer-defendant had none); and then citing Nyulassy, 120 Cal. App. 4th at 1282–83
(finding arbitration clause in employment agreement substantively unconscionable, inter alia,
because it only required arbitration of the employee-plaintiff’s claims and not the employer-
defendant’s claims)).)
E. The IDR Requirements do not impose significant costs
or delays
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ claim, the IDR Requirements are not prohibitively expensive nor
do they cause significant delays; therefore, they are not substantively unconscionable. Plaintiffs
merely repeat the same arguments the Court already addresses supra in Section II.b.i.2.A for
enforceability of the Carveout to the Delegation Clause, and the same reasoning applies.25
25 In a supplemental letter, Plaintiffs also argue that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rios
v. HRB Digital LLC supports a finding that the IDR Requirements are unconscionable due to
delays because Rios involved a similar informal pre-arbitration dispute resolution process with a
notice of dispute, mandatory conferences, and a “staged bellwether” provision that grouped
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 47 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

48
Plaintiffs have not alleged factual support demonstrating the financial burden of ligating the
claims, and Plaintiffs’ alleged high costs and delays due to the parties’ chosen advocacy strategy
are not probative of whether the IDR Process itself causes unconscionable delays.
2. Defendant did not waive its right to enforce the IDR
Conference requirement
Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s alleged bad faith during informal efforts to resolve disputes,
including during a prior commitment to mediate and the IDR Conferences, “constitutes a waiver
claims that the Rios court found unconscionable. (Pls.’ Ltr. Re Notice of Suppl. Auth. 2 (citing
No. 25-CV-3530, 807 F. Supp. 3d 975 (N.D. Cal. 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-7199 (9th Cir.
Nov. 14, 2025).) The facts of this case are distinguishable because the pre-arbitration process in
Rios involved several unconscionable concerns not present in this case.
First, the Rios court found “a significant degree of procedural unconscionability” not at
issue in this case. Rios, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 987. Second, the Rios court found that the staged
bellwether process and the statute of limitations tolling provision in the arbitration agreement
were substantively unconscionable because they “impose[d] unreasonable delays” without a
mechanism for relief when delays occurred. Id. at 989–93. In particular, the bellwether
provision in Rios placed the claimants “at risk of significant delays” because it allowed only
twenty “test cases” to proceed individually in arbitration prior to the advancement of other cases,
set an unenforceable deadline of 120 days for arbitrators to resolve cases, and duplicated the
process with sequential rounds of claims. Id. at 981, 990. This meant that the plaintiffs in Rios
potentially had to wait years for small groups of bellwether cases to be resolved before their
cases advanced. Id. at 986, 989–93. In contrast, the Terms in this case include a Batch
Arbitration provision, (see Terms § 19.9), not a bellwether provision, which arbitrates similar
arbitration demands in groups of 100 claims, with one decision for each batch, and does not
require sequential arbitration of the grouped claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs can proceed with
multiple groups of 100 claims concurrently. (See Terms § 19.9 (no sequential requirement);
Def.’s Reply to Pls.’ Ltr. Re Notice of Suppl. Auth. 2, Docket Entry No. 23.) As a result, the
risks of delay are not equivalent to Rios.
Third, the Rios court found the statute of limitations tolling provision unconscionable
because of its’ subjective standard that tolled claims only upon a “fully complete notice [of
dispute].” Rios, 807 F. Supp. 3d at 992–93. The court in Rios found this subjectivity coupled
with the defendant’s unilateral ability to reserve the rights to attack the statute of limitations
tolling created asymmetry and “an unacceptable level of uncertainty” about whether tolling
applies. Id. This uncertainty contributed to the delays from the bellwether process. Id. While in
this case, like in Rios with the “fully complete standard,” there is no objective criterion provided
in the Terms for what constitutes “good faith” in the IDR Conference, however, unlike Rios, the
statute of limitations is not contingent on the IDR Notice and applies “while the parties engage in
the [IDR] Conference process.” (See Terms § 19.2.) Therefore, there is no equivalent
“uncertainty” about the tolling provision’s application during the IDR Process. Moreover,
Plaintiffs do not challenge the statute of limitations. Fourth, the court in Rios did not address the
conscionability of the pre-arbitration conference requirement, which is the main concern raised
by Plaintiffs in this case. See generally Rios, 807 F. Supp. 3d 975.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 48 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

49
of the condition precedent to arbitration.” (Pls.’ Mem. 23; Pls.’ Opp’n 22.) In support, Plaintiffs
argue that Defendant frustrated Plaintiffs’ efforts to engage in IDR Conferences because
Defendant reneged on a previous agreement to mediate disputes from December of 2023. (Pls.’
Mem. 23; Pls.’ Opp’n 4.) Plaintiffs argue that during the IDR Conferences, Defendant engaged
in bad faith by “refusing to engage in any meaningful discussion with [Plaintiffs] to resolve the
disputes,” intending to only use the conferences to “gather information” and intimidate
consumers with threats of sanctions. (Pls.’ Mem. 24.)
The parties dispute the events of the five IDR Conferences held on February 19, 2024. In
a letter to Plaintiffs dated February 21, 2024, Defendant contends that (1) the five Plaintiffs who
individually attended IDR Conferences and (2) Plaintiffs who were allegedly represented by
counsel at those five IDR Conferences failed to comply with the conditions precedent to
arbitration by participating in the IDR Conferences in bad faith. (Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs.
dated Feb. 21, 2024.) During the five IDR Conferences, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs failed
to provide any substantive information about their concerns and used the five IDR Conferences
“to manufacture an excuse to cancel the [IDR] Conferences as early as possible in the process.”
(Id.) Defendant asserts that in every IDR Conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in “obstructive
conduct [that] persisted throughout each [IDR] Conference and prevented [Defendant] from
engaging in any meaningful dialogue necessary to understand and attempt to resolve [Plaintiffs’]
disputes.” (Id.) In addition, Defendant stated it was prepared to make settlement offers at the
IDR Conferences “depending on the good faith participation of each claimant and how the
dialogue unfolded.” (Id.) Ultimately, Defendant highlighted Section 19.8 of the Terms26 which
26 Section 19.8 of the Terms, “Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,” states: “The parties shall bear
their own attorneys’ fees and costs in arbitration unless the arbitrator finds that either the
substance of the [d]ispute or the relief sought in the [r]equest was frivolous or was brought for an
improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(b)). If you or we need to invoke the authority of a court of competent jurisdiction to compel
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 49 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

50
allows recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs if the arbitrator concludes a claim was brought for a
frivolous or improper purpose. (Id.) Defendant stated it would “seek such fees and costs [if
Plaintiffs] were [ ] to proceed with arbitration in disregard of the [IDR] requirements.” (Id.)
Defendant argues it did not waive the IDR Requirements, and Plaintiffs “point to no facts
showing that [Defendant] intentionally abandoned its right to insist on enforcement of the IDR
provision.” (Def.’s Mem. 23.) In support, Defendant maintains that its continued insistence on
compliance with the IDR Requirements demonstrates their lack of waiver. (Def.’s Reply 1, 8.)
Defendant disagrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization of their conduct as bad faith, but
nevertheless argues that bad faith would not imply waiver under the Terms. (Def.’s Mem. 23–
24.)
Plaintiffs submitted a March 26, 2024 letter response to Defendant’s letter. In the letter,
Plaintiffs claim Defendant’s letter misrepresents the IDR Conferences. (Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s
Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Mar. 26, 2024.) Plaintiffs contend that Defendant did not engage in
good faith informal efforts to resolve disputes but instead used the discussions to only “‘gather
information,’ read a boilerplate script, and inappropriately try to chill the claimants with threats
of sanctions.” (Id.) In support, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant’s representative at the IDR
Conferences “refused to answer” any of Plaintiffs’ questions,” and “[n]o matter what the
claimants responded [to Defendant’s questions], [Defendant’s] representative would simply
continue reading his script . . . .” (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s
representative stated they had no authority to make or receive settlement offers, and Defendant’s
arbitration, then the party that obtains an order compelling arbitration in such action shall have
the right to collect from the other party its reasonable costs, necessary disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in securing an order compelling arbitration. The prevailing
party in any court action relating to whether either party has satisfied any condition precedent to
arbitration, including the Informal Dispute Resolution Process, is entitled to recover their
reasonable costs, necessary disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Terms
§ 19.8.) The parties’ arguments do not address this Section or dispute attorneys’ fees. The Court
therefore declines to it address it.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 50 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

51
counsel “frustrated the purposes of the [IDR C]onferences” by instructing Defendant’s
representative to move onto subsequent questions when Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to
Defendant-representative’s stated purpose for the IDR Conferences — to gather information, as
opposed to informal resolution. (Id.)
Under New York law, “[a] waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right with
both knowledge of its existence and an intention to relinquish it . . . . Such a waiver must be
clear, unmistakable and without ambiguity.” Aron L. PLLC v. Town of Fallsburg, 158 N.Y.S.3d
349, 352 (App. Div. 2021) (citation omitted); Prof’l Staff Cong.-City Univ. of N.Y. v. N.Y. State
Pub. Emp’t Relations Bd., 824 N.Y.S.2d 577, 580 (2006) (quoting Civil Serv. Emps. Ass’n v.
Newman, 450 N.Y.S.2d 901, 903 (App. Div. 1982)) (same), aff’d, 61 N.Y.2d 1001 (1984).
“New York law provides that a party may waive its contractual rights if they ‘are knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally abandoned.’” Williams v. Buffalo Pub. Schs., 758 F. App’x 59, 63
(2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v. Tocqueville Asset Mgmt., LP, 7
N.Y.3d 96, 104 (2006)); Luitpold Pharm., Inc. v. Ed. Geistlich Sohne A.G. Fur Chemische
Industrie, 784 F.3d 78, 95 (2d Cir. 2015) (“A contractual right may be waived if it is ‘knowingly,
voluntarily and intentionally abandoned.’ But ‘waiver should not be lightly presumed and must
be based on a clear manifestation of intent to relinquish a contractual protection.’” (quoting
Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc., 7 N.Y.3d at 104)); Burlington Packaging, Inc. v. Extra
Packaging, Inc., No. 08-CV-1515, 2024 WL 4554643, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2024) (quoting
Luitpold Pharms., Inc., 784 F.3d at 95) (same)). “[T]he intention to waive [contractual rights]
must be clearly established and cannot be inferred from doubtful or equivocal acts or language.”
E.M. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 459 (2d Cir. 2014) (second alteration in original)
(quoting WMW Mach., Inc. v. Werkzeugmaschinenhandel GmbH IM Aufbau, 960 F.Supp. 734,
748 n.11 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); Voest-Alpine Int’l Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 707 F.2d
680, 685 (2d Cir. 1983) (stating that where waiver is not established “directly, unmistakably or
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 51 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

52
unequivocally,” issue of intent to waive right is “properly left to the trier of fact” (citation
omitted)); Pike Co. v. Tri-Krete Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 3d 353, 371 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (“This intent
[to waive] [a condition precedent] must be clearly established and cannot be inferred from
doubtful or equivocal acts or language.” (first alteration in original) (quoting Salomone v.
Abramson, 5 N.Y.S.3d 838, 848 (Sup. Ct. 2015))); see also Luitpold Pharms., Inc., 784 F.3d at
95 (“‘[M]ere silence, oversight or thoughtlessness in failing to object’ is insufficient to support
an inference of waiver.” (quoting Courtney-Clarke v. Rizzoli Int’l Publ’ns, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d
529, 529 (App. Div. 1998))).
Waiver is not supported by the record, and the Court therefore does not find Defendant
waived its right to conduct subsequent IDR Conferences with Plaintiffs. First, Plaintiffs point to
no facts indicating that Defendant expressed any intent to waive or discontinue the IDR
Conferences, and Defendant maintains that its continued insistence on IDR Conferences in this
action demonstrates a lack of waiver. (See Pls.’ Mem. 23–24; Pls.’ Opp’n 22; Def.’s Mem. 23–
24.) Accordingly, the record does not support that Defendant intentionally abandoned its right to
pursue IDR Conferences. Williams, 758 F. App’x at 63 (a contractual right must be waived
knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally abandoned); E.M., 758 F.3d at 459 (waiver must be
clearly established); Pike Co., 772 F. Supp. 3d at 371 (waiver of a contractual condition
precedent must be clearly established). Second, Plaintiffs’ theory that Defendant’s bad faith
constitutes waiver is not supported by law or fact. Plaintiffs cite to inapposite cases pertaining to
the defenses of impossibility or frustration of purpose. (See Pls.’ Mem. 23 and Pls.’ Opp’n 22
(first citing Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 906 F.3d 12, 23 (2d Cir. 2018)
(discussing impossibility); and then citing Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., 304 F.3d
200, 212 (2d Cir. 2002) (discussing impossibility and frustration of purpose)).)
Moreover, Plaintiffs citations to “bad faith” are conclusory and unconvincing because
Plaintiffs do not provide any evidence of bad faith. To support the allegation that Defendant
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 52 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

53
reneged on a prior commitment to mediate, Plaintiffs cite to one email from Defendant that states
it was “amenable to mediation” and otherwise provides no evidence of an agreement to mediate.
(Def.’s Email to Pls. dated Jan. 5, 2025, annexed to Kind Decl. as Ex. 16, Docket Entry No. 1-5.)
With respect to the five IDR Conferences that occurred, the parties did not provide transcripts,
and the parties’ letters and declarations summarizing the conferences indicate a lack of
resolution, but not bad faith or waiver.27 (See Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024;
Pls.’ Reply to Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Mar. 26, 2024.) As a result, the Court finds that
neither party submitted evidence to show that the other engaged in bad faith during the IDR
Conferences, and therefore the five Plaintiffs who attended the IDR Conferences have satisfied
the requirement.28
3. Additional IDR Conferences are not futile or impossible
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s alleged bad faith conduct during the five IDR
Conferences demonstrates “further conferences would be futile and a waste of time and
resources,” and the Court should therefore excuse Plaintiffs from further participation in IDR
Conferences. (Pls.’ Mem. 24.) In support, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s insistence on the
IDR Conferences where a “low-level representative [] discuss[es] complex legal claims[ ]”
shows that the IDR Process is designed to obstruct arbitrations and is not intended to advance or
resolve claims. (Pls.’ Opp’n 23.) Plaintiffs also argue that the doctrine of impossibility excuses
27 Plaintiffs do not cite to any specific evidence in the record of “threats of sanctions” by
Defendant. (Pls.’ Mem. 24.) The Court assumes Plaintiffs are referring to Defendant’s reference
to Section 19.8 of the Terms, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, in its letter to Plaintiffs following the
IDR Conferences. (See Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024.) Plaintiffs have not
identified any case law demonstrating that a reference to an agreed-upon contractual provision,
which Plaintiffs do not challenge, constitutes “threats of sanctions.”
28 The five plaintiffs are Aalany McMahan, Isaac Dwek, Luke Seagraves, Avrohom Shor
and Ariella Shor.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 53 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

54
the need for further IDR Conferences because “meaningful conferences are now practically
impossible” since “[Defendant] has shown no intent to participate in good faith.” (Id. at 24.)
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding futility and impossibility are
“baseless” because “scores of [other] consumers [ ] have completed IDR [C]onferences with
Temu and gone on to file arbitration claims, without any objection” and some “even resulted in
informal resolutions.” (Def.’s Reply 8 (emphasis omitted); Decl. of Matthew P. Valenti
(“Valenti Decl.”) ¶ 6, annexed to Def.’s Reply as Ex. 1, Docket Entry No. 17-1.) In addition,
Defendant argues impossibility does not apply because Plaintiffs can easily satisfy the IDR
Conference requirement by “merely” “showing up and listening.” (Def.’s Reply 9; see Def.’s
Mem. 23–24.) With respect to Plaintiffs’ futility argument, Defendant states Plaintiffs cannot
unilaterally declare the IDR Requirements “futile” and “presume the outcome of these
conferences in order to deprive [Defendant] of [its] contractual right” to hold individual IDR
Conferences with Plaintiffs. (Def.’s Reply 9.)
“Impossibility (also known as ‘impracticability’) is an affirmative defense under New
York law against liability for nonperformance of a contractual obligation.” Siemens Energy, Inc.
v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 82 F.4th 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2023) (citing Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 906
F.3d at 22 (2d Cir. 2018)); Garrand Bros. LLC v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 23-7343, 2024 WL
4691004, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2024) (summary order) (quoting Red Tree Invs., LLC v.
Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 82 F.4th 161, 170 (2d Cir. 2023)); Knickerbocker Retail LLC v.
Bruckner Forever Young Soc. Adult Day Care Inc., 167 N.Y.S.3d 462, 464 (App. Div. 2022)
(discussing affirmative defense of impossibility under New York law). “[I]mpossibility excuses
a party’s performance only when the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the
means of performance makes performance objectively impossible.” Siemens Energy, Inc., 82
F.4th at 153 (quoting Kel Kim Corp. v. Cent. Mkts., Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 900, 902 (1987)).
“Moreover, the impossibility must be produced by an unanticipated event that could not have
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 54 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

55
been foreseen or guarded against in the contract.” Id. (quoting Kel Kim Corp., 70 N.Y.2d at
902); M&K Imports, LLC v. Rejuveneda Med. Grp., Inc., No. 22-CV-2606, 2025 WL 3525315,
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2025) (“This affirmative defense excuses a party’s nonperformance
when (i) ‘the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the means of performance makes
performance objectively impossible,’ and (ii) the impossibility was ‘produced by an
unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract.’”
(quoting Kel Kim Corp., 70 N.Y.2d at 902)). To establish impossibility, a party “must therefore
show ‘that it took virtually every action within its power to perform its duties under the contract,’
and that, despite those efforts, performance was ‘objectively impossible.’” Siemens Energy, Inc.,
82 F.4th at 153 (first quoting Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker, 915 F.2d 805, 810 (2d Cir. 1990);
and then quoting Kel Kim Corp., 70 N.Y.2d at 902).
A futility defense under New York law arises in limited circumstances, such as with
notice and cure provisions, but is “availing only when the other party expressly repudiates
performance under the contract, or otherwise makes clear that it no longer seeks to perform its
obligations.” Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 673
F. App’x 57, 61 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Bressler, 977 F.2d 720, 727–28
(2d Cir. 1992)); ChemImage Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 24-CV-2646, 2025 WL 1883908,
at *13 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2025) (“[T]he Second Circuit has instructed that the futility exception to
conditions precedent — such as notice and cure requirements — generally comes into play only
when ‘the repudiating party expressly disavowed any further duties under the contract at issue,’
such that ‘it would have been futile for the aggrieved parties . . . to provide the breaching parties
with opportunities to cure their repudiations.” (first quoting Bausch & Lomb Inc., 977 F.2d at
727–28; then citing Wolff & Munier, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 946 F.2d 1003,
1009 (2d Cir. 1991); and then citing Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC v. Celgene Corp., 570 F. Supp.
3d 100, 116 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)), appeal docketed, No. 25-1962 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2025); see Wolff
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 55 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

56
& Munier, Inc., 946 F.2d at 1009 (explaining strict compliance with conditions precedent “is not
required where it would amount to a useless gesture” based on “abandonment of the job”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate impossibility or futility under New York law. Plaintiffs’
argument is that while it is possible to hold additional IDR Conferences, meaningful IDR
Conferences are practically impossible and futile because of Defendant’s bad faith conduct.
However, Defendant is willing to engage in IDR Conferences and has used them successfully
with different complainants. (See Valenti Decl. ¶ 6.) Five attempted IDR Conferences on behalf
of nearly 10,000 Plaintiffs are insufficient to claim all subsequent IDR Conferences are
impossible or futile, especially when the purpose of the IDR Conferences is to engage in a “good
faith effort to resolve informally” any disputes, but not necessarily achieve that resolution. (See
Terms § 19.2). The parties initial five IDR Conferences demonstrate that additional IDR
Conferences prior to proceeding to arbitration may not result in resolution, but they do not show
that Plaintiffs “took virtually every action in their power to perform [their] duties under the
contract,” or that additional IDR Conferences are “objectively impossible.” See Siemens Energy,
Inc., 82 F.4th at 153.
4. Substantial compliance does not apply because the Terms
require each Plaintiff to individually participate in an IDR
Conference
Plaintiffs argue that they satisfied the IDR Conference requirement through their
February 19, 2024 IDR Conferences with the five Plaintiffs who attended personally and argue
the remaining Plaintiffs listed in Appendix A attended through counsel. (Pls.’ Mem. 23–24; Pls.’
Opp’n 24.) In support, Plaintiffs argue that consumers are not required to attend individually
because “the personal attendance requirement is one-sided and unconscionable” as Defendant
“has no such requirement.” (Pls.’ Mem. 24–25.) In the alternative, Plaintiffs argue they attended
through counsel and therefore substantially complied with the IDR Requirements. (Id. at 25;
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 56 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

57
Pls.’ Opp’n 24–25.) Under the substantial performance doctrine, Plaintiffs argue their “departure
from full performance” is excused because “the result [of additional IDR Conferences] would
not have been different.” (Pls.’ Mem. 26.)
Defendant argues that (1) the five Plaintiffs who individually attended IDR Conferences
and (2) the other Plaintiffs allegedly represented by counsel at those five IDR Conferences failed
to comply with the conditions precedent to arbitration. (Def.’s Mem. 2, 25; Def.’s Reply 11.)
First, Defendant argues Plaintiffs did not participate in the IDR Conferences in good faith by
failing to provide any substantive information about their concerns and using the five IDR
Conferences to “manufacture an excuse to cancel the [IDR] Conferences as early as possible in
the process.” (Def.’s Ltr. Re IDR Confs. dated Feb. 21, 2024.) Second, Defendant argues that
any Plaintiff who did not personally participate in an IDR Conference failed to comply because
attendance through counsel is not allowed or contemplated under the Terms and cannot be
excused under the doctrine of substantial performance. (Def.’s Mem. 25; Def.’s Reply 10.)
Defendant argues attendance through counsel is Plaintiffs’ attempt “to rewrite the arbitration
agreement to allow for satisfaction of the IDR Requirement on a class-wide basis — with the
five individuals who appeared at their IDR [C]onferences acting as some sort of class
representatives for [ ] other [Plaintiffs],” and this is prohibited under the Terms. (Def.’s Reply
10 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Terms § 19.4).) Further, at the five IDR Conferences that were
conducted, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel “did not purport to be representing
anyone else at those conferences.” (Def.’s Mem. 25.) As a result, Defendant argues that “[a]ny
[Plainitff] who did not personally participate in an IDR [C]onference failed to comply,” and the
doctrine of substantial performance does not excuse the non-occurrence of an express condition
precedent such as the IDR Conference requirement. (Id.)
Where a condition in a contract is “clear and unambiguous and stated in unmistakable
language . . . it constitutes an express condition precedent that must be literally complied with
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 57 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

58
before plaintiff may recover.” Seaport Park Condo. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 828 N.Y.S.2d
381, 384 (App. Div. 2007) (internal citations omitted); see also Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Van
Cortland Vill. LLC, No. 08-CV-10414, 2011 WL 5834255, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2011)
(“Express conditions must be literally complied with before a party to the contract may recover.”
(citation omitted)).
Under New York law, “[e]xpress conditions must be literally performed; substantial
performance will not suffice.” In re Johns-Manville Corp., 759 F.3d 206, 214 (2d Cir. 2014)
(alteration in original) (quoting MHR Cap. Partners LP v. Presstek, Inc., 12 N.Y.3d 640, 645
(2009)); HTI Fin. Sols. Ltd. v. Manhattan SMI KG Props. Fin. Ltd., No. 24-CV-237, 2024 WL
4451965, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2024) (quoting id.); Misty Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. Indep. Grp.
Home Living Program, Inc., 204 N.Y.S.3d 537, 540 (App. Div. 2024) (“Express conditions
precedent must be literally performed; substantial performance will not suffice.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)); see United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 359, 364 (2d Cir.
2013) (“[S]ubstantial performance is ordinarily not applicable to excuse the non-occurrence of an
express condition precedent.” (quoting Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.,
86 N.Y.2d 658, 693 (1995) (describing limited exception for disproportionate forfeiture))); see
also Weiss v. Am. Express Nat’l Bank, No. 19-CV-4720, 2020 WL 71085, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7,
2020) (denying defendant’s motion to compel because defendant failed to satisfy the condition
precedent to arbitration); Marcus v. Frome, 275 F. Supp. 2d 496, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying
defendant’s motion to stay proceedings because defendant did not satisfy condition precedent
and therefore “the provisions requiring the arbitration of the claims made by the plaintiffs have
not yet been triggered.”).
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 58 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

59
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate substantial performance applies in this case because
compliance with the IDR Requirements is an express condition precedent29 to arbitration.30 (See
Terms § 19.2 (“Engaging in the [IDR] Conference is a condition precedent and requirement that
must be fulfilled before commencing arbitration.” (emphasis added)).) See In re Johns-Manville
Corp., 759 F.3d at 214. Moreover, Plaintiffs provide no factual or legal support to show
representation through counsel suffices or should apply to the Plaintiffs who did not attend an
IDR Conference.31 (See Terms § 19.2 (“[C]ounsel may participate in the [IDR C]onference, but
[the complainant] also agree[s] to participate in the conference.”).)
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) grants Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration
with respect to the five Plaintiffs who participated in IDR Conferences; and (2) denies Plaintiffs’
29 The parties do not dispute that the IDR Requirements are express conditions precedent
to arbitration.
30 In support of the argument that substantial performance excuses performance under an
express condition precedent, Plaintiffs cite to inapplicable cases where the case either lacks an
express condition precedent, Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co. v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap.,
Inc., 821 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2016), the case is out-of-circuit and non-binding, Hoosier
Energy Rural Elec. Coop. v. Amoco Tax Leasing IV Corp., 34 F.3d 1310, 1318 (7th Cir. 1994),
or the case does not support a finding of substantial compliance because it involved only
insignificant deviations from full compliance, Kennedy v. Auto. Maint., Inc., 384 N.Y.S.2d 921,
922 (Dist. Ct. 1976) (quoting Witherell v. Lasky, 145 N.Y.S.2d 624, 627 (App. Div. 1955)).
Departure from full performance in this case is not an “inconsiderable trifle [deviation] having
no pecuniary importance,” as Plaintiffs contend, because except for the five Plaintiffs who
attended IDR Conferences, Plaintiffs did not attend an IDR Conference, denying Defendant of its
contractual right to engage in a “good faith effort to resolve [the claims] informally.” (Pls.’
Mem. 26 (quoting Kennedy, 384 N.Y.S.2d 921).) See Royal Bank of Canada v. Beneficial Fin.
Leasing Corp., No. 87-CV-1056, 1992 WL 167339, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 1992) (substantial
performance did not apply to the express condition precedent because “the magnitude of [ ]
default from full performance was not inconsiderable or uncostly”); cf. Kennedy, 384 N.Y.S.2d
at 923 (substantial performance applied because the plaintiff’s departure was a “mere
technicality having no pecuniary importance” and the plaintiff performed his underlying
obligation).
31 Plaintiffs’ repeated arguments regarding futility and unconscionability have been
addressed supra in Sections II.b.iii.3 and II.b.iii.1.
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 59 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

60
motion to compel arbitration for Plaintiffs listed in Appendix A and grants Defendant’s motion
to dismiss with respect to these Plaintiffs because they have not completed the IDR Process.
Dated: March 9, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERED:
/s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 60 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML
Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 61 of 110 PageID
#: < pageID>
Appendix A

1. Aaliyah Byrd
2. Aaron Duran
3. Aaron Mance
4. Aaron Pruitt
5. Aaron Reynolds
6. Aaron Schaefers
7. Aaron Schmit
8. Aayush Sisodia
9. Abby Korb
10. Abby Kraynick
11. Abie Tawil
12. Abigail Arceo
13. Abigailruth Causey
14. Abraham Katz
15. Abraham Marks
16. Abriale Johnson
17. Ace Robison
18. Adam Burgett
19. Adam Davis
20. Adam Dunne
21. Adam Etzel
22. Adam Hall
23. Adam Kaemmerer
24. Adam Leech
25. Adam McAfee
26. Adam Newton
27. Adam Sauer
28. Adam Vest
29. Adam Wade
30. Adderlie Grissett
31. Addie Newman
32. Adella Gonzalez
33. Adina Ringler
34. Adlean Roberts
35. Adna Combs
36. Adrena Wright
37. Adrian Carabay
38. Adrian Maravilla
39. Adrian Martinez
40. Adrian Rodriguez
41. Adrian Terry
42. Adriana Valenzuela
43. Adwoa Smith
44. Agatha Lewandowska
45. Agnes Mendenhall
46. Aida Kong
47. Aida Siller-Rodriguez
48. Aimee Ryan
49. Ainsley Domingo
50. Aisha Walker
51. Aisha Weaver
52. Aisha Wilson
53. Akeda Wilkes
54. Akela Anderson
55. Akia West
56. Al Hartman
57. Al Solorzano
58. Alan Grochowski
59. Alan Hang
60. Alan Leggett
61. Alan Worsham
62. Alanna Harrison
63. Alanna Kletcke
64. Albert Huynh
65. Albert Montesinos
66. Alberta Chalmers
67. Alberta Davis
68. Alberto Sordo
69. Aldona Reese
70. Aleema Hawks
71. Alejandro Ramirez
72. Alena Cameron
73. Alesia McMurry
74. Alex Emond
75. Alex Garcia
76. Alex Grier
77. Alex Ramirez
78. Alex Tat
79. Alexa Brown
80. Alexa Romero
81. Alexander Baskerville
82. Alexander Grier
83. Alexander Kane
84. Alexander Manso
85. Alexandria Hackney
86. Alexandria Nicholas
87. Alexis Baird
88. Alexis Davila
89. Alexis Dee
90. Alexis Fuglio
91. Alexis Hardisty
92. Alexis Perry
93. Alexis Peterson
94. Alexis Rhodes
95. Alexis Ruffin
96. Alexis Sbarboro
97. Alexzandro Chavez
98. Alfonza Allen
99. Alfred Carrature
100. Alice Behner
101. Alice Coffey
102. Alice Finnegan
103. Alice Singleton
104. Alicia Almedina
105. Alicia Cobbs
106. Alicia Cortina
107. Alicia Dove
108. Alicia Elliott
109. Alicia League
110. Alicia Prim
111. Alicia Rivera
112. Alicia Salas
113. Alicia Smith
114. Alijah Morgan
115. Alisa Dewitt
116. Alisa Jones
117. Alisa Polack
118. Alisa Simmons
119. Alisa Williams
120. Alisha Ketcheside
121. Alisha McGath
122. Alisha Meyer
123. Alisha Miller
124. Alisha Warren
125. Alisha Wilken
126. Alishia Bumpers
127. Alison Amato
128. Alison Orr
129. Alissa Detaeje
130. Alissar Alrawashdeh
131. Alisson Hernandez
132. Aliza Hennings
133. Allen Cleveland
134. Allen Gillespie
135. Allen McCarty
136. Allen Moure
137. Allen Payne
138. Allen Thomas
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 62 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

139. Allexus Lafayette
140. Allison Blank
141. Allison Brandenstein
142. Allison Holden
143. Allison Lonberg
144. Allison Smith
145. Allison Theys
146. Alma Hernandez
147. Alma Ledezma
148. Alonzo Porter Jr
149. Alrissa Slayton
150. Althea Earl
151. Altonya Anderson
152. Altonya Johnson
153. Alvin Clardy
154. Alyce Rancour
155. Alycia Melbourne
156. Alysa Wells
157. Alysa Woodring
158. Alysha Trinkle
159. Alyssa Barbelet
160. Alyssa Corona
161. Alyssa Harris
162. Alyssa Lewis
163. Alyssa Melton
164. Alyssa Miller
165. Alyssa Quatraro
166. Amaan Siddiqui
167. Amanda Alioto
168. Amanda Baddeley
169. Amanda Bennett
170. Amanda Bentle
171. Amanda Bernstein
172. Amanda Blymire
173. Amanda Bolding
174. Amanda Boyd
175. Amanda Christy
176. Amanda Davis
177. Amanda Degrasse
178. Amanda Eller
179. Amanda Fowler
180. Amanda Fritts
181. Amanda Gentry
182. Amanda Hackett
183. Amanda Harn
184. Amanda Hasten
185. Amanda King
186. Amanda Kopp
187. Amanda Levin
188. Amanda Lopez
189. Amanda Loveland
190. Amanda Mabalcon
191. Amanda Neiser
192. Amanda Pearcy
193. Amanda Powers
194. Amanda Putney
195. Amanda Radcliff
196. Amanda Reeves
197. Amanda Roberts
198. Amanda Schouten
199. Amanda Seeley
200. Amanda Smith
201. Amanda Solomon
202. Amanda Stinson
203. Amanda Tubbs
204. Amanda Turney
205. Amanda Weatherford
206. Amanda Weaver
207. Amanda Williams
208. Amani King
209. Amber Brasher
210. Amber Briggs
211. Amber Casey
212. Amber Davis
213. Amber Espinosa
214. Amber Foust
215. Amber Hanshaw
216. Amber Harrell
217. Amber Hinkle
218. Amber Irick
219. Amber Jamew
220. Amber Johnston
221. Amber Krimmer
222. Amber Lamar
223. Amber Lott
224. Amber Luker
225. Amber Malone
226. Amber Nelson
227. Amber Parrish
228. Amber Polcyn
229. Amber Radcliff
230. Amber Shields
231. Amber Skidmore
232. Amber Smith
233. Amber Tipton
234. Amber Verrett
235. Amber Yeazell
236. Amelia Storch
237. Ameshia Westbrook
238. Esmeralda
Higginbotham
239. Amie Highsmith
240. Amie Kniffin
241. Amit Agarwal
242. Amorey Walker
243. Amy Akin
244. Amy Bayer
245. Amy Bradley
246. Amy Davidson
247. Amy Devries
248. Amy Diamond
249. Amy Dombrowski
250. Amy Doran
251. Amy Grindley
252. Amy Hansen
253. Amy Heffernan
254. Amy Heidel
255. Amy Jenkins
256. Amy Kaczmarek
257. Amy Krapiva
258. Amy Palm
259. Amy Patton
260. Amy Perez
261. Amy Pettengill
262. Amy Ramos
263. Amy Robillard
264. Amy Sass
265. Amy Scott
266. Amy Spears
267. Amy Tedeton
268. Amy Tushoski
269. Amy Wilson
270. Ana Jimenez
271. Ana Viera
272. Anamaria Sotomayor
273. Anastasia Jones
274. Anderson C Marshall
275. Andre Evans
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 63 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

276. Andre Gilbert
277. Andre Jones
278. Andre Lee
279. Andre Miller
280. Andre Wangard
281. Andrea Aldridge
282. Andrea Allen
283. Andrea Ayala
284. Andrea Borkowski
285. Andrea Brooks
286. Andrea Carlson
287. Andrea Evans
288. Andrea Fayo
289. Andrea Garcia
290. Andrea Jackson
291. Andrea Kriner
292. Andrea Lawrence
293. Andrea Maybury
294. Andrea McClain
295. Andrea McCoy
296. Andrea Otto
297. Andrea Spears
298. Andrea Wilson
299. Andrelia Payton
300. Andres Leyva
301. Andrew Banks
302. Andrew Boyd Iii
303. Andrew Breksa
304. Andrew Brink
305. Andrew Davis
306. Andrew Denning
307. Andrew Forys
308. Andrew Foster
309. Andrew Haffner
310. Andrew Hellman
311. Andrew Langan
312. Andrew Macias
313. Andrew Vazirabadi
314. Andrew Wilkendorf
315. Andrianna Alex
316. Andtea Hunt
317. Andy Morales
318. Andy Taylor
319. Angel Franco
320. Angel Gordon
321. Angel Hall
322. Angel Hawkins
323. Angel Johnson
324. Angel Jones
325. Angel Nunes
326. Angel Pritts
327. Angel Quiroz
328. Angel Reyes
329. Angela Austin
330. Angela Ballman
331. Angela Billups
332. Angela Bowman
333. Angela Brown
334. Angela Bruck
335. Angela Cooper
336. Angela Crowell
337. Angela Davis
338. Angela Dixon
339. Angela Dostal
340. Angela Edwards
341. Angela Epps
342. Angela Freeney
343. Angela Hake
344. Angela Harrington
345. Angela Harris Jones
346. Angela Hassell
347. Angela Henderson
348. Angela Johnson
349. Angela Jones
350. Angela Kelly
351. Angela Lagrone
352. Angela Lewis
353. Angela Lloyd Foster
354. Angela Lowney
355. Angela McDonnell
356. Angela McQueen
357. Angela Miller
358. Angela Moore
359. Angela Muzzicato
360. Angela Oliveria
361. Angela Owens
362. Angela Payne
363. Angela Pfershy
364. Angela Richards
365. Angela Ritchie
366. Angela Saxton
367. Angela Singleton
368. Angela Speed-Green
369. Angela Teboe
370. Angela Touva
371. Angela Williams
372. Angela Williams
373. Angela Williamson
374. Angela Wisner
375. Angelia Jackson
376. Angelica Johnson
377. Angelica Lathrop
378. Angelina Vallelunga
379. Angelique Bester
380. Angelique Newton
381. Angelique Wilkins
382. Angella Martin
383. Angie Bennett Harvey
384. Angie Blackwell
385. Angie Kendrick
386. Angie Kovacs
387. Angie Morales
388. Angie Thomas
389. Angie Zurick
390. Anika Thomas
391. Anita Atkinson
392. Anita Ball
393. Anita Curry
394. Anita Ethridge
395. Anita Hohn
396. Anita Medrano
397. Anita Vossler
398. Ann Booth
399. Ann Brown
400. Ann Horack
401. Ann Lynn
402. Ann Mohrmann
403. Ann Partridge
404. Ann Wheeler
405. Anna Florencia
406. Anna Foster
407. Anna Gathings
408. Anna Hamilton
409. Anna Hellmann
410. Anna Johnson
411. Anna Klempan
412. Anna Maria Granato
413. Anna Reyes
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 64 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

414. Anna Vickers
415. Anna Warner
416. Anne McCann
417. Anne Pullen
418. Anne Smith
419. Annette Facenda
420. Annette Felix
421. Annette Garcia
422. Annette Hicks
423. Annette Miller
424. Annette Oliveras
425. Annette Phillips
426. Annette Soyinthisane
427. Annette Striegel
428. Annie Booker
429. Annie Glenister
430. Anthony Bailey
431. Anthony Bell
432. Anthony Biram
433. Anthony Buccieri
434. Anthony Crea
435. Anthony Desparrois
436. Anthony Gardner
437. Anthony Harrison
438. Anthony Hopkins
439. Anthony Johnson
440. Anthony Johnstone
441. Anthony Konger
442. Anthony Langley
443. Anthony Leonardi
444. Anthony Marquez
445. Anthony Mora
446. Anthony Oberting
447. Anthony Sbarra
448. Anthony Sikora
449. Anthony Velasquez
450. Anthony Warner
451. Anthony Zerbini
452. Antionette Staniewicz
453. Antoine Crews
454. Antoinette Gusters
455. Anton Moore
456. Anton Whitman
457. Antonio Alonso
458. Antonio Clark
459. Antonio Hernandez
460. Antonio Hill
461. Antonio Moreno
462. Antonio Morris
463. Antonneia Norwood
464. Antony Roman
Santiago
465. Antuan Blackman
466. Antwone Hebrard
467. Anya Jackson
468. April Brown
469. April Carroll
470. April Cook
471. April Depew
472. April Dominique
473. April Ferro
474. April Goins
475. April Johnson
476. April Kaba
477. April King
478. April Lewis
479. April McCouller
480. April McGown
481. April Peebles
482. April Randall
483. April Tucker
484. April Urrea
485. April Wheeler
486. April Wortham
487. Araceli Maloney
488. Arbony McIntosh
489. Archie Cullen
490. Ardittee Mendoza
491. Aretha Edwards
492. Ariana Aguilar
493. Ariana Zhang
494. Ariel Correll
495. Ariel Joyce
496. Arlene Lighthart
497. Arlis Ball
498. Armando Acosta
499. Arminda Johnson
500. Arnetta Celedon
501. Arnetta Wallace
502. Arnold McDaniel
503. Art Golden
504. Arthur Tanguay
505. Artimmeo
Williamson
506. Arturo Terrazas
507. Ashanti Price
508. Ashely Cruz
509. Ashlea Ellenburg
510. Ashlee Dunlap
511. Ashlee Hullinger
512. Ashlee James
513. Ashleigh Sosbe
514. Ashley Britton
515. Ashley Cannon
516. Ashley Clark
517. Ashley Costantini
518. Ashley Cox
519. Ashley Fox
520. Ashley Frazier
521. Ashley Garner
522. Ashley Graham
523. Ashley Hudson
524. Ashley Johnson
525. Ashley Jones
526. Ashley Lindsay
527. Ashley Marcinkowski
528. Ashley Martin
529. Ashley McGee
530. Ashley Morgan
531. Ashley Myers
532. Ashley Noble
533. Ashley Parsons
534. Ashley Popek
535. Ashley Reid
536. Ashley Satcher
537. Ashley Schindler
538. Ashley Schmidt
539. Ashley Stdon
540. Ashley Thi
541. Ashley Tomisek
542. Ashley West
543. Ashley West
544. Ashley Wonderlin
545. Ashley Wright
546. Ashleycae Lee
547. Ashton Ward
548. Ashunta Owens
549. Assia Bouzidi
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 65 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

550. Athena Mordenti-
Gass
551. Athena Steverson
552. Atira White
553. Atoyia Orders
554. Atul Mittal
555. Aubrey Jablonski
556. Audra Berry
557. Audrey Brown
558. Audrey Douthard
559. Audrey Langford-
Nichols
560. Audrey Ornstein
561. Audrey Pittman
562. Audrey Russell
563. Aundria Evans
564. Aurianna McDuffie
565. Aurora Rosario
566. Austin Litberg
567. Autumn Heiden-
Smith
568. Autumn Riley
569. Ava Lynch
570. Ayanda Coward
571. Ayanna Dupree
572. Ayonna Brown
573. Ayoub Bouguettaya
574. Bahiya Hopkins-Bey
575. Bailey Carey
576. Barbara Avent
577. Barbara Beaver
578. Barbara Byrne
579. Barbara Cameron
580. Barbara Consiglio
581. Barbara Curtis
582. Barbara Holmes
583. Barbara Jones
584. Barbara Labombard
585. Barbara Mead
586. Barbara Patino
587. Barbara Philiotis
588. Barbara Pitt Daniels
589. Barbara Prodgers
590. Barbara Satterwhite
591. Barbara Seaman
592. Barbara Simms
593. Barbara St John
594. Barbara Thompson
595. Bardia Godsi
596. Barrington Reynolds
597. Barry Eisenberg
598. Barry Hinch
599. Barry Watson
600. Batina Boykin
601. Beatina McCullough
602. Beatrice Barros
603. Becky Lawson-Ross
604. Becky Schweitzer
605. Belinda Allison
606. Belinda Thompson
607. Belinda Tuigamala
608. Belinda Winston
609. Ben Gates
610. Benae Jackson
611. Benito Banda
612. Benjamin Bower
613. Benjamin Cobb
614. Benjamin Marquez
615. Benjamin Wade
616. Bernadette Carr
617. Bert Kinnicutt
618. Bertha Tweed
619. Bessie Benson
620. Beth Bounds
621. Beth Diskin
622. Beth Patti
623. Beth Wolfe
624. Bethanie Deyo
625. Bethany McKibben
626. Bethany Meckowski
627. Bethany Thompson
628. Bethany Tolson
629. Bethany Warkentin
630. Bethina Sampson
631. Betsy Martinez
632. Betsy Speckman
633. Bettie R. Williams
634. Betty Brain
635. Betty Compton
636. Betty Lee
637. Betty Newell
638. Betty Oliver
639. Beverly Blankenship
640. Beverly Goodwin
641. Beverly Terrell
642. Beverly Wiliams
643. Bianca Latry
644. Bianca Moore
645. Bianca Roche
646. Bianca Williams
647. Bill Goetz
648. Bill Hankensiefken
649. Billie Zepeda
650. Billy Armstrong
651. Billy Dojcak
652. Billy Perez
653. Blanca Vazquez
654. Blundean Kennedy
655. Bob Reotutar
656. Bobbi Shultz
657. Bobbie Nowak
658. Bobbie Rodgers
659. Bobbie Thuis
660. Bobbie Wall
661. Bobbiejo Larock
662. Bobby Carey
663. Bobby Duvall
664. Bobby Mills
665. Bonnie Anstey
666. Bonnie Bennett
667. Bonnie Campbell
668. Bonnie Ferdig
669. Bonnie Kimpling
670. Bonnie McDonald
671. Bontae Wynn
672. Bounthavy
Bounkhong
673. Bradford Thomas
674. Bradley Gerik
675. Bradley Nicklas
676. Bradley Spielvogle
677. Bradley Stanek
678. Brady Dupont
679. Brady Payne
680. Brandi Carawan
681. Brandi Ford
682. Brandi Harriman
683. Brandi Lynch
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 66 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

684. Brandi Madden
Killingsworth
685. Brandi Perry
686. Brandi Ramey
687. Brandi Sanders
688. Brandie Sumpter
689. Brandis Broomfield
690. Brandon Benson
691. Brandon Blount
692. Brandon Bolden
693. Brandon Brantley
694. Brandon Darashti
695. Brandon Essary
696. Brandon Johnson
697. Brandon Lord
698. Brandon Mosher
699. Brandon Schiess
700. Brandt Berry
701. Brandy Booker
702. Brandy Clark
703. Brandy Floyd
704. Brandy Hudson
705. Brandy King
706. Brandy Klonica
707. Brandy Littrell
708. Brandy Maughs
709. Brandy Norman
710. Brandy Osborne
711. Brandy Quackenbush
712. Brandy Unruh
713. Brandy Vandevander
714. Brandy Warren
715. Brant Snedeger
716. Breanna Coach
717. Breanna Sharp
718. Breaunna McDonald
719. Breezy Leonard
720. Brein Anglin
721. Brenda Ackley
722. Brenda Beck
723. Brenda Blue
724. Brenda Ellis
725. Brenda Faye Odums
726. Brenda Hivks
727. Brenda Johnson
728. Brenda K Chatman
729. Brenda Keegan
730. Brenda Marquez
731. Brenda McClendon
732. Brenda Messex
733. Brenda Moore
734. Brenda Nettell
735. Brenda Randall
736. Brenda Reardon
737. Brenda Riggs
738. Brenda Williams
739. Brent Adams
740. Brent Gellineau
741. Brent Leeth
742. Brent Skinner
743. Brent Stover
744. Brentney Oliver
745. Brenton Baker
746. Breonna Anthony
747. Brett Denman
748. Brett Weston
749. Brian Barajas
750. Brian Brown
751. Brian Clifton
752. Brian Eller
753. Brian Gateley
754. Brian Grady
755. Brian Gutke
756. Brian Haukeness
757. Brian Hinton
758. Brian Miller
759. Brian Portelli
760. Brian Ray
761. Brian Riviere
762. Brian Sattler
763. Brian Sharp
764. Brian Summers
765. Brian Treat
766. Brian Turner
767. Brian Williams
768. Briana Bates
769. Briana Stegman
770. Brianca Adams
771. Brianna Noriega
772. Brianna Wells
773. Bridget Bilka
774. Bridget Hargrow
775. Bridget Otoole
776. Bridget Williams
777. Bridgett Defrain
778. Brigette
Ambrozewski
779. Britany Haas
780. Britney Dorsam
781. Britny Mynch
782. Brittanee Jackson
783. Brittani Miles
784. Brittani Sias
785. Brittany Allison
786. Brittany Balaoing
787. Brittany Blethen
788. Brittany Brest
789. Brittany Condon
790. Brittany Ferguson
791. Brittany Hodges
792. Brittany Hunter
793. Brittany Johnson
794. Brittany Lopato
795. Brittany Melahn
796. Brittany Metzken
797. Brittany Paige
798. Brittany Palmer
799. Brittany Patterson
800. Brittany Paul
801. Brittany Phillips
802. Brittany Reinhold
803. Brittany Smith
804. Brittany Thompson
805. Brittany Tinkham
806. Brittany Victorian
807. Brittany Wurst
808. Brittiany Lomax
809. Brittney Laster
810. Brittney Paez
811. Brittney Polcyn
812. Brittney Samaduroff
813. Brittney Stoudemire
814. Brittni Boone
815. Brittny Genson
816. Brittny Gordon
817. Brodie Major
818. Brooke Early
819. Brooke Kidner
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 67 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

820. Brooklynn Edgar
821. Brother Michael J
Phillips Ocs
822. Bruce Hines
823. Bruce Kersh
824. Bruce Osborn
825. Bruce Susel
826. Bryan Brettillo
827. Bryan Carpenter
828. Bryan Dailey
829. Bryan Leonard
830. Bryana Christian
831. Bryant Clemence
832. Caetano Peralta
833. Caitlin Blagg
834. Caitlin Collins
835. Caitlin Kennedy
836. Caitlin McCullough
837. Caitlin Sepessy
838. Caitlynn Samuel
839. Callie Munch
840. Calvin May
841. Camden Trosper
842. Cameron Fluaitt
843. Cameron King
844. Cameron McCleary
845. Cameron Thistle
846. Camilla Jones
847. Camille Hubert
848. Camille Plante
849. Camille Riley
850. Candace Hinchliffe
851. Candace Jones
852. Candace Parker
853. Candace Sellers
854. Candace Williams
855. Candi Elaine
856. Candi Hathcock
857. Candice Jordan
858. Candice Smith
859. Candise Bukowski
860. Candita McNurlan
861. Cara Geckles
862. Cara Schable
863. Cara Weir
864. Caral Rogers
865. Caren Willcox
866. Carissa Bohandy
867. Caritta Gilchrist
868. Carl Davis
869. Carl Diggs
870. Carl Stout
871. Carl Taylor
872. Carla Ball
873. Carla Clark
874. Carla Cole
875. Carla Davis
876. Carla Dobbins
877. Carla Hughes
878. Carla Jones
879. Carla Kaehler
880. Carla Miller
881. Carla Rios
882. Carla Thompson
883. Carline Barrau
884. Carlo Fiorletta
885. Carlos Desa
886. Carlton Hallman
887. Carlton Purdy
888. Carman Harlin
889. Carmela Wilson
890. Carmelita Gregory
891. Carmen Brown
892. Carmen English
893. Carol Beaudry
894. Carol Cosetti
895. Carol Cozeolino
896. Carol Degnis
897. Carol Domek
898. Carol Griffin
899. Carol Haney
900. Carol Laudonio
901. Carol Pampurojones
902. Carol Vanatta
903. Carole Conlan
904. Carole Garrity
905. Carole Near
906. Caroline Moss
907. Caroline Smith
908. Carolyn Carr
909. Carolyn Chaffin
910. Carolyn Harrison
911. Carolyn Hill
912. Carolyn Hough
913. Carolyn Jimenez
914. Carolyn Martin
915. Carolyn Newkirk
916. Carolyn Shuff
917. Carolyn Smith
918. Carolyn Stewart
919. Carolyn Vigne
920. Caron James
921. Carrie Berry
922. Carrie Broderick
923. Carrie Burks
924. Carrie Fields
925. Carrie Johnston
926. Carrie Justice
927. Carrie Wilkinson
928. Carrie-Anne Amato
929. Carter Grimm
930. Carter Neilsen
931. Cary Eskew
932. Caryn House
933. Casey Funderburg
934. Casey Relkin
935. Casey Starnes
936. Casey Walker
937. Cashuna Mayes
938. Cassandra Alexander
939. Cassandra Barnes
940. Cassandra Brewer
941. Cassandra Dunn
942. Cassandra Harrell
943. Cassandra Hicks
944. Cassandra L Glover
Crumpler
945. Cassandra Martinson
946. Cassidy Delacy
947. Cassidy Kirk
948. Cassie Stockelman
949. Cassius Corbin
950. Castiel Darling
951. Catalina Amaya
952. Catherine Antosh
953. Catherine Bobiek
954. Catherine Bowers
955. Catherine Brown
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 68 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

956. Catherine Daniel
957. Catherine Doyle
958. Catherine Michelle
Speagle
959. Catherine Mihalsky
960. Catherine Price
961. Catherine Thomas
962. Catheryn Duggar
963. Cathryn Moore
964. Cathy Alvarado
965. Cathy Carroll
966. Cathy Connor
967. Cathy Howard
968. Cathy Jones
969. Cathy Letts
970. Cathy Long
971. Cathy Pizana
972. Cathy Price
973. Cathy Schirmer
974. Cathy Sink
975. Cathy Topping
976. Cathy Walchalk
977. Cathy Zeigler
978. Catinna Bunch
979. Catrenia Morris
980. Catrice Bryson
981. Ceaser Kelly
982. Cecile Truong
983. Cedric Calhoun
984. Cedric Woodard
985. Celestine Pearman
986. Celine Commissiong
987. Celso Martinez
988. Cera Krei
989. Cesar Aguero
990. Cesar Quintana
991. Chad Fegely
992. Chad Frazier
993. Chad Hughes
994. Chad Jones
995. Chad Keysor
996. Chad Posey
997. Chad Sherwood
998. Chad Varner
999. Chaely Chartier
1000. Chalamar Edwards
1047. Chasity Green
1048. Chasity Locklear
1049. Chasity Williams
1050. Chastity Uresti
1051. Chatara Luke
1052. Chaundra C Hughes
1053. Chealesa Parsha
1054. Chela McClain
1055. Chelita Cail
1056. Chelsea Collins
1057. Chelsea Knell
1058. Chelsy Cusack
1059. Chenille Hart
1060. Cherell Conway
1061. Cheri Christian
1062. Cheri Dodson
1063. Cherie Waggie
1064. Cherika Taylor
1065. Cherish Dabney
1066. Cherish Oclair
1067. Cherokee Johnson
1068. Cherokee Sebra
1069. Cheryl Boeglin
1070. Cheryl Bruns
1071. Cheryl Costa
1072. Cheryl Diperri
1073. Cheryl Glass Cabell
1074. Cheryl Jenkins
1075. Cheryl Lee
1076. Cheryl Masching
1077. Cheryl Peters
1078. Cheryl Podgornik
1079. Cheryl Ralls
1080. Cheryl Sauer
1081. Cheryl Shoffstall
1082. Cheryl Steed
1083. Cheryl Szymczak
1084. Cheryl Volk
1085. Cheryl Walsh
1086. Cheryl Wilcox
1087. Cheryl Williams
1088. Cheryle Friedman
1089. Cheryle Reese
1090. Chester Barnhart
1091. Chester Davis
1092. Cheyenne Gilbert
1001. Chaleria Knowles
1002. Chanda Wiltz 1003.
Chandra Bednar 1004.
Chandra Russum 1005.
Chanerial Clay 1006.
Chaney Krzton 1007.
Chang Kee Neo 1008.
Chanicka Parker 1009.
Chantay Cross 1010.
Chantel North 1011.
Chantrel Moore 1012.
Chantrell Courtney 1013.
Charisse Ramos 1014.
Charity King 1015. Charity
Miller 1016. Charlene
Blanson 1017. Charlene
Gomez 1018. Charlene
Joseph 1019. Charlene
Wells 1020. Charles
Brown 1021. Charles
Connor 1022. Charles
Cosby 1023. Charles
Cunningham 1024. Charles
Dillon 1025. Charles
Dowling 1026. Charles
Hannon 1027. Charles
Jaster 1028. Charles
Johnson 1029. Charles
McCain 1030. Charles
McDaniel 1031. Charles
McDonald 1032. Charles
Moakley 1033. Charles
Putnam 1034. Charles
Sangster 1035. Charles
Serrano 1036. Charles
Sova 1037. Charles Turner
1038. Charlesia Garner
1039. Charlette Carter
1040. Charlie Carter 1041.
Charlotte Harries 1042.
Charlotte Johnson 1043.
Charlotte White 1044.
Charmaine Nichols 1045.
Charmaine Tate 1046.
Chasidy Goodnite
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 69 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1093. Chilly De Romero-
Contreras
1094. Chinia Belcher
1095. Chloe Caldasso-
Smith
1096. Chris Choi
1097. Chris Dugan
1098. Chris Givins
1099. Chris Huynh
1100. Chris Marley
1101. Chris Marshall
1102. Chris McBrayer
1103. Chris Powell
1104. Chris Ra
1105. Chris Rusnak
1106. Chris Sanders
1107. Christa Maubach
1108. Christi Bradshaw
1109. Christian Walker
1110. Christie Harvey
1111. Christie Joramo
1112. Christie Kelly
1113. Christie Schubert
1114. Christina Belisle
1115. Christina Blackbear
1116. Christina Blodgett
1117. Christina Collins
1118. Christina
Dannenberg
1119. Christina Davis
1120. Christina Foster
1121. Christina Germain
1122. Christina Gilbride
1123. Christina Gonzalez
1124. Christina Hall
1125. Christina Hernandez
1126. Christina Johnson
1127. Christina Jones
1128. Christina Jutras
1129. Christina Kreider
1130. Christina Kumler
1131. Christina Logsdon
1132. Christina Matticks
1133. Christina Mays-
Walker
1176. Christopher Jones
1177. Christopher
Marshall
1178. Christopher Meek
1179. Christopher Peabody
1180. Christopher
Reynolds
1181. Christopher Sanchez
1182. Christopher Scarber
1183. Christopher Squires
1184. Christopher Stacy
1185. Christopher Tarin
1186. Christopher Walker
1187. Christopher Wilborn
1188. Christy Blount
1189. Christy Carter
1190. Christy Emerson
1191. Christy Parent
1192. Christy Ragland
1193. Christy Sinclair
1194. Christy Walker
1195. Chrystal Thurston
1196. Chrystallynn Burch
1197. Chyra Blackaller-
Townsen
1198. Ciara Weatherspoon
1199. Ciarra Moreno
1200. Cindy Alderink
1201. Cindy Coronel
1202. Cindy Hamilton
1203. Cindy Lee Calderon
1204. Cindy Newingham
1205. Cindy Outinen
1206. Cindy Rohrbach
1207. Cindy Swanick
1208. Cindy Tinnell
1209. Cindylee Marshall
1210. Cinica Baity
1211. Claire Hawk
1212. Claire Pulgar
1213. Clara Horn
1214. Clarence Lawson
1215. Claritza Velez
1216. Claudette Koehler
1217. Claudette Stephen
1218. Claudia Bocanegra
1134. Christina
Montgomery
1135. Christina Moses
1136. Christina Oliveras
1137. Christina Palmieri
1138. Christina Phipps
1139. Christina Reyes
1140. Christina Rivera
1141. Christina Russell
1142. Christina Stowe
1143. Christina Surgener
1144. Christina Taylor
1145. Christina Tyszko
1146. Christine Bentley
1147. Christine Bukowski
1148. Christine Colwell
1149. Christine Fernandez
1150. Christine Gleason
1151. Christine Gregg
1152. Christine Harris
1153. Christine Hess 1154.
Christine Koloski 1155.
Christine Lanning 1156.
Christine Mitchell 1157.
Christine Pedala 1158.
Christine Pezel 1159.
Christine Ritch 1160.
Christine Smith 1161.
Christine Usher 1162.
Christine Wiggins 1163.
Christopher Ardito 1164.
Christopher Atkins 1165.
Christopher Barulich 1166.
Christopher Bradburry
1167. Christopher Butler
1168. Christopher
Castleberry
1169. Christopher Crocker
1170. Christopher Fowlie-
Lujan
1171. Christopher Globke
1172. Christopher Hackett
1173. Christopher Hart
1174. Christopher Haynes
1175. Christopher Hyde
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 70 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1219. Claudia Caino
1220. Claudia Garcia
1221. Clayce Singletary
1222. Clele Sundquist
1223. Clifford Demos
1224. Clifford Martin
1225. Clifton Luckett
1226. Clinton Follmer
1227. Clinton Medley
1228. Cody Flowers
1229. Cody Hankins
1230. Cody Huffman
1231. Cody Johnson
1232. Cody Lake
1233. Cody Loy
1234. Cody Martin
1235. Cody Murphy
1236. Cody Swinney
1237. Colby Babineaux
1238. Cole Redrup
1239. Colene Wells
1240. Colette Williams
1241. Colin Cogle
1242. Colleen
Baumgartner
1243. Colleen Devries
1244. Colleen Rex
1245. Colleen Wentworth
1246. Concetta Stoia
1247. Connie Allen
1248. Connie Bejan
1249. Connie Brown
1250. Connie Cocanougher
1251. Connie Estes
1252. Connie Metts Page
1253. Connie Mitchell
1254. Connie Rico
1255. Connie Swafford
1256. Connie Wilson
1257. Constance Cryer
1258. Constance
Hernandez
1259. Constelle Smith
1260. Constence Jones
1261. Consuala Caples
1262. Consuelo Lofton
1308. Crystal Magers
1309. Crystal Miller
1310. Crystal Moore
1311. Crystal Nason
1312. Crystal Naylor
1313. Crystal Nunley
1314. Crystal Simms
1315. Crystal Snellgrove
1316. Crystal Tatum
1317. Crystal Weatherford
1318. Crystal Williams
1319. Curtis Austin
1320. Curtis Jones
1321. Cyd Hunter
1322. Cyndel Cain
1323. Cyndi Hall
1324. Cynthia Bailey
1325. Cynthia Bateman
1326. Cynthia Breitfeld
1327. Cynthia Brown
1328. Cynthia Burnett-
Smith
1329. Cynthia Callahan
1330. Cynthia Carter
1331. Cynthia Chapman
1332. Cynthia Clements
1333. Cynthia Crippen
1334. Cynthia Edgington
1335. Cynthia Felts
1336. Cynthia Gardner
1337. Cynthia Haslip
1338. Cynthia Huss
1339. Cynthia Kerr
1340. Cynthia Minus
1341. Cynthia Sargent
1342. Cynthia Scott
1343. Cynthia Strong
1344. Cynthia Vogel
1345. Cynthia Williams
1346. Cynthy Lamb
1347. Cyrus Azad
1348. Cyrus Mistry
1349. Dacey David
1350. Dai-Nien Tran
1351. Dainnese Rutledge
1352. Daisy Mora
1263. Corey Railey 1264.
Corey Wright 1265. Corina
White 1266. Corinna Cho
1267. Corinna Loudon
1268. Corinne Salmen
1269. Corinne Tooley
1270. Corinthian Bracey
1271. Cornelius Buffler
1272. Corrin Odle
1273. Corrine Caldwell
1274. Corsini Dolce 1275.
Cortney Lawrence 1276.
Cory Norr
1277. Cory Sanders 1278.
Coryliss Lorraine Wynns
1279. Courtney Alexander
1280. Courtney Bennett
1281. Courtney Bienemy
1282. Courtney Dennis
1283. Courtney Gross
1284. Courtney Harris
1285. Courtney Lambert
1286. Courtney McKinney
1287. Courtney Schultz
1288. Courtney Schumaker
1289. Craig Corey
1290. Craig Hiser
1291. Craig Keough 1292.
Craig Meyers 1293. Crissy
Boone 1294. Crista
Milholland 1295. Cristian
Duran 1296. Cristiane
Breining 1297. Cristina
Ruiz 1298. Crysta Riley
1299. Crystal Beard 1300.
Crystal Drenner 1301.
Crystal Dukes 1302.
Crystal Durden 1303.
Crystal Eckleberry 1304.
Crystal Gannon 1305.
Crystal Garcia 1306.
Crystal Herring 1307.
Crystal Johnson
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 71 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1353. Daizha Tate
1354. Dakesha Green
1355. Dakota Leach
1356. Dakota Tuma
1357. Dakota Wittmeyer
1358. Dale Crayton
1359. Dale Goldspiel
1360. Dale Reich
1361. Daleene Fox
1362. Dallas Bishop
1363. Dalton Johnson
1364. Damaris Texidor
1365. Dameka Jones
1366. Damian Albanese
1367. Damian Lewis
1368. Damian Munguia
1369. Damien Patterson
1370. Damien Stuckey
1371. Damita Waller
1372. Damon Dotson
1373. Damon Stock
1374. Damond Singleton
1375. Dan Forbis
1376. Dana Barnett
1377. Dana Berkley
1378. Dana Dawes
1379. Dana English
1380. Dana Fraley
1381. Dana Graysauceda
1382. Dana Lamb
1383. Dana Lewis
1384. Dana McCloskey
1385. Dana McLean
1386. Dana Moore
1387. Dana Nairoby
Espana Gonzalez
1388. Dana Olita
1389. Dana Quinteros
1390. Dana Ravizee
1391. Dana Vicory
1392. Dana Wynne
1393. Dandi Seibert
1394. Dane Webb
1395. Dani Trosper
1396. Danica Lute
1397. Danica Roxas
1442. Danisha Greer
1443. Danita Beard
1444. Dannelle McDonald
1445. Dannetta Green
1446. Danny Randleman
1447. Danya Slocum
1448. Danyel Kryder
1449. Danza Turner
1450. Daphane Hatcher
1451. Daphne Blount
1452. Daphne Ford
1453. Daphne Jackson
1454. Daphne McMorris
1455. Daphne Valentine
1456. Daquan Sandidge
1457. Daquaya Dawkins
1458. Darablee Thach
1459. Darell Smith
1460. Daren Aker
1461. Darian Turner
1462. Darien Beasley
1463. Darien Cannon
1464. Darien Garrett
1465. Darin Bates
1466. Darin Ellard
1467. Darius Shaw
1468. Darla Wheeler
1469. Darlene Barszcz
1470. Darlene Calhoun
1471. Darlene Kelley
1472. Darlene Taylor
1473. Darlene Tollett
1474. Darlene Weatherly
1475. Darnell Bunch
1476. Darrell Hill
1477. Darren Brissett
1478. Darren Schroeder
1479. Darrian Robinson
1480. Darrnell McCoy
1481. Darryl Larry
1482. Darryle Sigismundo
1483. Darvae Johnson
1484. Darya Gutierrez
1485. Daryl Frazetti
1486. Daryl Posey
1487. Dathen Wiseman
1398. Daniel Arroyo
1399. Daniel Atkins
1400. Daniel Bayot
1401. Daniel Behar
Calzado
1402. Daniel Blitch
1403. Daniel Burke
1404. Daniel Coffman
1405. Daniel Conejo
1406. Daniel Courtney
1407. Daniel Cox
1408. Daniel Fitzgerald
1409. Daniel Gutierrez
1410. Daniel Keohane
1411. Daniel Martin
1412. Daniel Muirhead
1413. Daniel Ray Grover
1414. Daniel Saavedra
1415. Daniel Varady
1416. Daniel West
1417. Daniela Cruz
1418. Daniela Foster
1419. Daniela Zamor
1420. Danielle Adams
1421. Danielle Avery
1422. Danielle Brown
1423. Danielle Dlugasz
1424. Danielle Enriquez
1425. Danielle Howie
1426. Danielle Johnson
1427. Danielle
Karamanian
1428. Danielle Kimbrough
1429. Danielle Kinley
1430. Danielle Laun
1431. Danielle Luchner
1432. Danielle Maryland
1433. Danielle McDonald
1434. Danielle Mellott
1435. Danielle Palermo
1436. Danielle Petrouski
1437. Danielle Soto
1438. Danielle Tenore
1439. Danielle Tillery
1440. Danielle Williams
1441. Danilo Alcantara
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 72 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1488. Dave Dandrea
1489. Dave Miller
1490. Dave Querciagrossa
1491. David Afflick
1492. David Andrews
1493. David Bowes
1494. David Burcio
1495. David Defriece
1496. David Eddinger
1497. David Faal
1498. David Fister
1499. David Flink
1500. David Freifeld
1501. David Gentry
1502. David Goehst
1503. David Howell
1504. David Jackson
1505. David Josselyn
1506. David Kaplan
1507. David La
1508. David Lindsey
1509. David Lucky
1510. David Monahan
1511. David Moody
1512. David Murphy
1513. David Overstreet
1514. David Pearson
1515. David Percifield
1516. David Perkins
1517. David Portwood
1518. David Quigley
1519. David Rojas
1520. David Rose
1521. David Roseboro
1522. David Ruberto
1523. David Ryan
1524. David Smith
1525. David Sparks
1526. David Staats
1527. David Stevenson
1528. David Trocki
1529. David Vasquez
1530. David Zakrzewski
1531. Daviel Vazquez
1532. Davonna Patterson
1533. Davonte Burns
1580. Debbie Stafford
1581. Debbie Woods
1582. Debbra Baxter
1583. Debby Blair
1584. Debby Krueger
1585. Debi Lafaire
1586. Debora Dorsey
1587. Deborah Allen
1588. Deborah Brader
1589. Deborah Butler
1590. Deborah Daniels
1591. Deborah Fell
1592. Deborah Franklin
1593. Deborah Kordeliski
1594. Deborah Merritt
1595. Deborah Monk
1596. Deborah Reynolds
1597. Deborah Stevenette
1598. Deborah Sutton
Miller
1599. Deborah Sweatland
1600. Deborah Tank
1601. Deborah Williams
1602. Deborah Wunderlich
1603. Deborah Yutzy
1604. Debra Aldridge
1605. Debra Alexander
1606. Debra Archer
1607. Debra Crawford
1608. Debra Deaton
1609. Debra Demicco
1610. Debra Hodge
1611. Debra Johnson
1612. Debra Keenan
1613. Debra Kozik
1614. Debra Luna
1615. Debra McCormick
1616. Debra Peters
1617. Debra Shows
1618. Debra Sybertz
1619. Debrah Alsobrook
1620. Dee Burdett-
Stalding
1621. Deedee Brown
1622. Deena Kidd
1623. Deidra Bond
1534. Davron Mirsagatov
1535. Dawn Brooks
1536. Dawn Caltrider
1537. Dawn Davis
1538. Dawn Fugate
1539. Dawn Grant
1540. Dawn Harris
1541. Dawn Kaiser
1542. Dawn Keyser
1543. Dawn Lowery
1544. Dawn Meyers
1545. Dawn Wells
1546. Dawn Williams
1547. Dawna Hoffman
1548. Dawnielle Baker
1549. Daylisha Wright
1550. Daymond Johnson
1551. Dean Calamia
1552. Dean Stramondo Jr
1553. Deana West
1554. Deanetta Thomas
1555. Deangila Johnson
1556. Deann Welch
1557. Deanna Angell
1558. Deanna Dube
1559. Deanna Jones
1560. Deanna Pike
1561. Deanna Stokes
1562. Deanna Young
1563. Deanne McIntire
1564. Deb Honn
1565. Deb Shaffer
1566. Debbie Bingham
1567. Debbie Disler
1568. Debbie Howell
1569. Debbie Kuciver
1570. Debbie Lashomb
1571. Debbie Matthews
1572. Debbie Mayes
1573. Debbie Petralia
1574. Debbie Potter
1575. Debbie Rash
1576. Debbie Shepard
1577. Debbie Short
1578. Debbie Shrum Ryan
1579. Debbie Spangler
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 73 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1624. Deidre Bolin
1625. Deidre Harris
1626. Deijha Harper
1627. Deirdra Emmerick
1628. Deirdre Calhoun
1629. Deirdre Nixon
1630. Deja Roney
1631. Deja Stepney
1632. Deja Tanzy
1633. Dejahnae Snow
1634. Dekeisha Knowles
1635. Dekierra Duncan-
Smith
1636. Del-Renee Powell
1637. Delfina Gonzalez
1638. Delia Medina
1639. Delisa Wideman
1640. Della Grace
1641. Delois Howze
1642. Delores McCain
1643. Delores Mims
1644. Delvin Miller
Wright
1645. Demarla Stanley
1646. Demetra Smith
1647. Demetria Charles
1648. Demetria Hodges
1649. Demetria Snyder
1650. Demetric Clark
1651. Demetris Lewis
1652. Demetrius Fletcher
1653. Demicheal Staley
1654. Dena Delreal
1655. Denesha Davis
1656. Denice Stauffer
1657. Deniece Williams
1658. Denisa Howe
1659. Denise Akins
1660. Denise Bowen
1661. Denise Brown
1662. Denise Crawford
1663. Denise Dunnavant
1664. Denise Franco
1665. Denise Hagemeister
1666. Denise Henshaw-
Corbitt
1712. Dhrutiben Patel
1713. Diamond Carson
1714. Diamond Landry
1715. Diamond Thompson
1716. Diamonique Coney
1717. Diamonique J
Kennedy
1718. Diana Barry
1719. Diana C Smith
1720. Diana Gregory
1721. Diana Knight
1722. Diana Macmurray
1723. Diana Marcotte
1724. Diana McQuee
1725. Diana Vaughan
1726. Diana Wallace
1727. Diandra Bucksbee
1728. Diane Adams
1729. Diane Deluna
1730. Diane Glade
1731. Diane Gregory
1732. Diane Kneuer
1733. Diane Malburg
1734. Diane Monaghan
1735. Diane Morris
1736. Diane Neptune
1737. Diane Parker
1738. Diane Reither
1739. Diane Walker
1740. Diane Woods Young
1741. Dianna Cole
1742. Dianna Perez
1743. Diannah Williams
1744. Dianne Tedlie
1745. Diarra Diop
1746. Diego Kurg
1747. Diego Zepeda
1748. Dieisha Hodges
1749. Diethra Phillips
1750. Dillon Alvarado
1751. Dinah-Aaliyah Croft
1752. Dinita Anderson
1753. Dion Beals
1754. Dionne Anderson
1755. Dionne Thomas
1756. Dolly Watson
1667. Denise Hyatt
1668. Denise Ingram
1669. Denise Johnson Hurt
1670. Denise Lewis
1671. Denise Mann
1672. Denise Mayberry
1673. Denise Salazar
1674. Denise Toney
Richardson
1675. Denise Vines
1676. Denise Walsh
1677. Denisha Gray
1678. Denniese Bennett
1679. Dennis Flynn
1680. Dennis Gromov
1681. Dennis Hanson
1682. Dennis Moeller
1683. Dennis Raap
1684. Dennis Smolen
1685. Denzel Traylor
1686. Deon Sheffield
1687. Derek Holman
1688. Derrick Bolton
1689. Derrick Harris
1690. Derrick Williams
1691. Desi Johnson
1692. Desira Lopez
1693. Desiree Brannon
1694. Desiree Griffith
1695. Desiree Hanke
1696. Desiree Jones
1697. Desiree White
1698. Destinee Britton
1699. Destiny Adams
1700. Destiny Morrison
1701. Destiny Wright
1702. Deundra Foreman
1703. Devica Whatley
1704. Devin Douglas
1705. Devin Hanners
1706. Devin McClellan
1707. Devina Olsen
1708. Devon McInnis
1709. Dezarea Jimerson
1710. Dezerie Grant
1711. Dhaman Gill
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 74 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1757. Dolores Bernal
1758. Dolores Brown
1759. Dolores Garcia
1760. Dolores Gay
1761. Dolores Havens
1762. Dolores Triplett
1763. Doloris Reserva
1764. Dolves Jefferson
1765. Dominic Carosello
1766. Dominique Conner
1767. Dominique Covelli
1768. Dominique Davis
1769. Dominique Johnson
1770. Dominique Powell
1771. Dominique Smith
1772. Dominique Taylor
1773. Dominique Wright
1774. Domonise Allen
1775. Don Hammett
1776. Don Pinkston
1777. Don Rethwisch
1778. Donald Clarke
1779. Donald Hamilton
1780. Donald Hardaway
1781. Donald Hughes
1782. Donald Lubbe
1783. Donald Sandstede
1784. Donavon Reed
1785. Doneise Shepard
1786. Dong Eun Kim
1787. Dong Woo Cho
1788. Doniece Drake
1789. Donna Ali
1790. Donna Armstrong
1791. Donna Baird
1792. Donna Bean
1793. Donna Bert
1794. Donna Bilodeau
1795. Donna Bokma
1796. Donna Briggs
1797. Donna Brown
1798. Donna Burke
1799. Donna Cain
1800. Donna Caldwell
1801. Donna Carman-
McGrier
1802. Donna Copelton
1803. Donna Dantino
1804. Donna Davis
1805. Donna Davis
1806. Donna Franklin
1807. Donna Glenn
1808. Donna Gonzalez
1809. Donna Gosa
1810. Donna Leighton
1811. Donna Mitchell
1812. Donna Neithercut
1813. Donna Oneill
1814. Donna Ploss
1815. Donna Read
1816. Donna Reis
1817. Donna Rodea
1818. Donna Saxon
1819. Donna Skiba
1820. Donna Smith
1821. Donna Thebeau
1822. Donna Thrasher
Goucher
1823. Donna Townsend
1824. Donna Williams
1825. Donna Youdelman
1826. Donnetta Pettigrew
1827. Donnie Norman
1828. Donnie Ortega
1829. Donnita Davis
Breaux
1830. Donny Vann Jr
1831. Donovan Tapia
1832. Donta Jordan
1833. Dontesha Rouse
1834. Dora Huggins
1835. Dore Wakefield
1836. Doreen Chang
1837. Doreen Hunter
1838. Doreka Barnum
1839. Dorine Darisme
1840. Doris Burket
1841. Doris Hardeman
1842. Doris Monroe
1843. Doris Reehl
1844. Dorothy Bracey
1845. Dorothy Durham
1846. Dorothy Lewis
1847. Dorothy Lucas
1848. Dorothy Martin
1849. Dorothy Neal
1850. Dorothy Spencer
1851. Dorothy Swanagan
1852. Dorothy Thomas
Frey
1853. Dorthanna Nance
1854. Doug Newsom
1855. Douglas Elcock
1856. Douglas Kinney
1857. Doyal Jones
1858. Dragomira Petrova
1859. Drashinda Butler
1860. Dreama Smith
1861. Drerek Hamilton
1862. Dulce Tellez
1863. Dustin Carter
1864. Dustin Howe
1865. Dusty Paradee
1866. Dwayne Baudy
1867. Dwayne Cornelious
1868. Dwight Evans
1869. Dwight McGhee
1870. Dwight Murphy
1871. Dylan Peffer
1872. Dylan Souther
1873. Dyron Criss
1874. E R Lara-Salazar
1875. Earl Johnson
1876. Eboni Greer
1877. Ebony Cunningham
1878. Ebony Hopkins
1879. Ebony Jones
1880. Ebony Smith
1881. Ebony Smith
1882. Eddie Bailey
1883. Eddie Beck
1884. Edgar Smith
1885. Edith Munoz
1886. Edith Walton
1887. Edmond Todd
1888. Edna Bridges
1889. Edna Terry
1890. Edrena Bell
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 75 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

1891. Edward Briscoe
1892. Edward Davis
1893. Edward Drummond
1894. Edward Fee
1895. Edward Jian
1896. Edward Lewis
1897. Edward Mitchell
1898. Edward Walter
1899. Eileen Bonfiglio
1900. Eileen Chu
1901. Eileen Sanford
1902. Eileen Wilkinson
1903. Elaina Abing
1904. Elaine Anthony
1905. Elaine Navarrette
1906. Eleanor Smith
1907. Elian Ramos
1908. Elijah Hackethal
1909. Elisa Catalano
1910. Eliseo Campos
1911. Eliseo Sandoval Jr
1912. Elisha Beard
1913. Elisha Gregory
1914. Elisha Satterwhite
1915. Elizabeth Asano
1916. Elizabeth Beasley
1917. Elizabeth Blake
1918. Elizabeth
Bridgewater
1919. Elizabeth Builta
1920. Elizabeth Burson
1921. Elizabeth Capper
1922. Elizabeth Cheney
1923. Elizabeth Conde
1924. Elizabeth
Cureington
1925. Elizabeth Encalada
1926. Elizabeth Everhart
1927. Elizabeth Fay
1928. Elizabeth Fresquez
1929. Elizabeth Gadman
1930. Elizabeth Garvin
1931. Elizabeth Goodman
1932. Elizabeth Johnson
1933. Elizabeth Kent
1934. Elizabeth Levin
1980. Emmett Harris
1981. Enea Prifti
1982. Eric Bowie
1983. Eric Dlugoss
1984. Eric Estill
1985. Eric Harvey
1986. Eric Hutcheson
1987. Eric Isbrucker
1988. Eric Manisco
1989. Eric Perkins
1990. Eric Roberts
1991. Eric Romam
1992. Eric Stabler
1993. Eric Wahala
1994. Erica Adams
1995. Erica Avery
1996. Erica Bird
1997. Erica Bonds
1998. Erica Coronado
1999. Erica Fuentes
2000. Erica Gowin
2001. Erica Jordan
2002. Erica Martins
2003. Erica Pagan
2004. Erica Ruiz
2005. Erica Stevenson
2006. Erica Thomas
2007. Erica Tumenas
2008. Erick Brengle
2009. Erick Sole
2010. Erick Tyson
2011. Ericka Byrd
2012. Ericka Rouse
2013. Erico Dos Santos
2014. Erik Baker
2015. Erik Potter
2016. Erika Dooly
2017. Erika May Towers
2018. Erika Pluta
2019. Erin Busse
2020. Erin Callihan
2021. Erin Casey
2022. Erin Charles
2023. Erin Crenshaw
2024. Erin Cunningham
2025. Erin Dodge
1935. Elizabeth Madison
1936. Elizabeth Martinez
1937. Elizabeth Miller
1938. Elizabeth Mills
1939. Elizabeth
Moorefield
1940. Elizabeth Reynolds
1941. Elizabeth Salazar
1942. Elizabeth Serrato
1943. Elizabeth Smith
1944. Elizabeth Sosbe
1945. Elizabeth Terpstra
1946. Elizabeth Thomas
1947. Elizabeth Virola
1948. Ella Epperson
1949. Ellen Hendricks
1950. Ellen M Windhauser
1951. Ellen Sanchez
1952. Elliott Bracken
1953. Elly Hallack
1954. Elvis Diciero
1955. Emerald Benitez
1956. Emi Bruemmer
1957. Emilie Hoepker
1958. Emily Bensley
1959. Emily Bonaventure
1960. Emily Chen
1961. Emily Clevenger
1962. Emily Drennen
1963. Emily Edwards
1964. Emily Hilbrand
1965. Emily Kinder
1966. Emily King
1967. Emily Pflum
1968. Emily Streetman
1969. Emily Williams
1970. Emily Witek
1971. Emma Garcia
1972. Emma Lunny
1973. Emma Martin
1974. Emma McCaster
1975. Emma Oconnell
1976. Emma Reyes
1977. Emma Rose Breyere
1978. Emma Rouse
1979. Emmanuel Sandoval
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 76 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2026. Erin Fitzsimmons
2027. Erin Manion
2028. Erin Nelson
2029. Erin Sam
2030. Erin Smith
2031. Erin Wagner
2032. Erma McNutt
2033. Ernest Calhoun
2034. Ernest Shaun Reyes
2035. Ernest Turman
2036. Ernestine Lopez
2037. Ernestine Mays
2038. Ernesto Dimaggio
2039. Errika Brown
2040. Esad Turkanovic
2041. Esmeralda Sosa
2042. Essence Underwood
2043. Essie White
2044. Essliss Fowler Iii
2045. Estefania Montero
2046. Estella Tucker
2047. Esther
Cottonharmon
2048. Ethan Pearl
2049. Ethan Peterson
2050. Ethel Allen
2051. Ethel Denise
Henderson
2052. Ethel Marsingill
2053. Ethel Washington
2054. Etta Schnauffer
2055. Eugene Bayona
2056. Eugene Clinton
2057. Eugene Fritsch
2058. Eugene Scott
2059. Eugene White
2060. Eunice Rivera
2061. Eusebio James
Villalobos
2062. Eva Dean
2063. Eva Estime
2064. Eva Gonzalez
2065. Eva Rivas Richburg
2066. Evelyn Cooper
2067. Evelyn Engesser
2068. Evelyn Head
2069. Evelyn Rivas
2070. Evelyn Snell-
Bridgeford
2071. Evetta Thompson
2072. Evette Drobnich
2073. Evonne Hogue
2074. Eynia Oliver
2075. Ezequiel Salas
2076. Fabian Martinez
2077. Faith Antwi
2078. Faith Bates
2079. Faith Carter
2080. Faith Ezell
2081. Faith Gardy
2082. Faith Hallinan
2083. Faith Jackson
2084. Fajah Brown
2085. Faline Moliere
2086. Fallon Crass
2087. Fallon Isom
2088. Fanieca Roberts
2089. Farah Brown
2090. Fay George
2091. Faye Gavin
2092. Faye Thompson
2093. Fayette Oneal
2094. Felecia Dunn
2095. Felice Perez
2096. Felicia Burton
2097. Felicia Greene
2098. Felicia Jackson
2099. Felicia Long
2100. Felicia Mitchell
2101. Felicia Stanley
2102. Felisa Davis
2103. Felisha Mays
2104. Felix Morales
2105. Felixia Gregoire
2106. Fellicia Ortiz
2107. Felycia Martin
2108. Ferddahiam
Mendoza
2109. Fernando Roman
2110. Fiona Bradford
2111. Floy Hale
2112. Frances Dotson
2113. Frances Holmes
2114. Frances Oliveira
2115. Frances Williams
2116. Francesca Crandall
2117. Francine Sweet
2118. Francis Ra
2119. Francisco Alvarez
2120. Frank Cruz
2121. Frank D Gallegos
2122. Frank Kelly
2123. Frank Morrow
2124. Frank Philbrook
2125. Frank Wells
2126. Frankie Killings
Larkin
2127. Frankie Townsend
2128. Frankie Viruet
2129. Franscoise Greer
2130. Fred Kendricks-El
2131. Freddy Lee
2132. Frederick Knofski
2133. Fredrick Azack
2134. Fredrick Weaver
2135. Freeman Horton
2136. Frieda Johnson
2137. Funmi Moka
2138. Gabbrielle Harder
2139. Gabreal Perez
2140. Gabriel Hooghuis
2141. Gabriel Vater
2142. Gabriela Torres
2143. Gabrielle Pratt
2144. Gabrielle Vanzant
2145. Gale Kittleson
2146. Gale Mims
2147. Gale Pachura
2148. Ganaye Babb
2149. Gari Kiser
2150. Garrett Reinig
2151. Garrison Webking
2152. Gary Backman
2153. Gary Bean
2154. Gary Cembrowski
2155. Gary Cole
2156. Gary Cole
2157. Gary Dowler
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 77 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2158. Gary Eggers
2159. Gary Goodwin
2160. Gary Henley
2161. Gary Irwin
2162. Gary Jackson
2163. Gary Moody
2164. Gary Palmer
2165. Gary Polito
2166. Gary Porter
2167. Gary Proutt
2168. Gary Read
2169. Gay Howell
2170. Gayla Martindale
2171. Gayle Davis
2172. Gayle Thornberry
2173. Gaynell Ragas
2174. Gena Licata
2175. Geno Gordon
2176. Gene Gurevich
2177. Geneva Whaley
2178. Genevieve Sweets
Sanchez
2179. Genni Clark
2180. Genoveva Ortiz
2181. George Aguirre
2182. George Alford
2183. George Conarty
2184. George Cruz
2185. George Duncan
2186. George Harbison
2187. George Hernaandez-
Mendoza
2188. George Larson
2189. George Lascu
2190. George Nino
2191. George Pratt
2192. George Randall
Joseph Jr
2193. George Schramm
2194. George Taylor
2195. Georgene Ward
2196. Georgetta Murray
2197. Georgia Hunter
2198. Georgina Huff
2199. Gerald Ernst
2200. Gerald Lajiness
2201. Geraldine Bresler
2202. Geraldine Little
2203. Gerard Brennan
2204. Gerard Moreno
2205. Gerardo Aldana
2206. Gerardo Jimenez
2207. Gerardo Medrano
2208. Gian Pirovano
2209. Gideon Markowitz
2210. Gifted Mullens
2211. Giget Holcomb
2212. Gil Hodges
2213. Gila Kind-Korenblit
2214. Gilbert Ackerson
2215. Gina Angelo
2216. Gina Fernandez
2217. Gina Garcia
2218. Gina Lizette Garza
2219. Gina McMahan
2220. Gina Reichard
2221. Gina Sharp
2222. Ginger Lafleur
2223. Ginger Reed
2224. Giselle Pikor
2225. Gladys Coston-
Gibson
2226. Gladys Houston
2227. Gladys Jones
2228. Gladys Tolbert
2229. Gladys Waiters
2230. Glen Dunlap
2231. Glenda Boston
2232. Glenda Brown
2233. Glenda Smethers
2234. Glenda Thomas
2235. Glenn Cole
2236. Glenn Stricker
2237. Glennis Whitley
2238. Gloria Ashley
2239. Gloria Atkins
2240. Gloria Davis
2241. Gloria Felton
2242. Gloria Fuller
2243. Gloria Guzman
2244. Gloria Illingworth
2245. Gloria Norwood
2246. Gloria Rios
2247. Goldie Shannon
2248. Greg Brooks
2249. Greg Drayton
2250. Greg Resnick
2251. Gregory Angelos
2252. Gregory Dawson
2253. Gregory Holman
2254. Gregory Krikorian
2255. Gregory McOsker
2256. Gregory Stark
2257. Gretchen Gorman
2258. Gretchen Heinz
2259. Gricely Rosa
2260. Grover Thomas
2261. Guillermo Torres
2262. Gustavo Lopez
2263. Gwen McDuffie
2264. Gwendolyn
Wayman
2265. Gwenevere Turner
2266. Haide Medina
2267. Hailey Kleinheksel
2268. Hali Black
2269. Hali Matte
2270. Halima Bori
2271. Hamdeh Mokdadi
2272. Hannah Kim
2273. Hannah Powers
2274. Hardi Patel
2275. Harlan Kauffman
2276. Harley Wooten
2277. Harold Boyce
2278. Harold Gross
2279. Harold Lewis
2280. Harriet Seltzer
2281. Harriet Wesley
2282. Harry Haynes
2283. Harry Owens
2284. Hattie Igartua
2285. Hattie Watkins
2286. Hawaii Lang
2287. Hayden Schaffer
2288. Haylie Hicks
2289. Hazel Youngblood
2290. Heather Adomeit
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 78 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2291. Heather
Buckingham
2292. Heather Carver
2293. Heather Cibirka
2294. Heather Devaney
2295. Heather Duffy
2296. Heather Ellens
2297. Heather Hurley
2298. Heather Hyde
2299. Heather Judy
2300. Heather Kelliker
2301. Heather Kersting
2302. Heather Lampp
2303. Heather Ligue
2304. Heather Luckritz
2305. Heather Lynch
2306. Heather Michael
2307. Heather Nagy
2308. Heather Nebinger
2309. Heather Otis
2310. Heather Overturff
2311. Heather Paterson
2312. Heather Porter
2313. Heather Potter
2314. Heather Ramsey
2315. Heather Randall
2316. Heather Shaffer
2317. Heather Toulon
2318. Heather Vonhagen
2319. Heather Wick
2320. Heather Worcester
2321. Heathyr Briscoe
2322. Heathyre Perara
2323. Heaven Worthman
2324. Hebah Meqbel
2325. Hector Alatorre
2326. Hector Santiago
2327. Heidi Carpender
2328. Heidi Elkins
2329. Heidi Fenton
2330. Heidi Hatch Willis
2331. Heidi Heridia
2332. Heidi Humphreys
2333. Heidi Lentsch
2334. Heidi Maddox
2335. Heidi Walsh
2336. Heidi Zimolka
2337. Heleen Kelly
2338. Helen Hartman
2339. Helen Johnson
2340. Helen Younglas
2341. Henreci Patterson
2342. Henry Hawk
2343. Henry Hopkins
2344. Henry Powell
2345. Herschel Younger
2346. Heydy Estrada
2347. Hiatham Wahdan
2348. Hilda Hernandez
2349. Hillery Eiser
2350. Hina Bhimani
2351. Hisini Davis
2352. Holli Parks
2353. Hollie Helseth
2354. Hollie Myers
2355. Holly Grover
2356. Holly Johnson
2357. Holly Lemaster
2358. Holly Pietrowski
2359. Holly Priest
2360. Holly Souders
2361. Holly Vroom
2362. Honee Cristina
2363. Honoria Searcy
2364. Hope Houser
2365. Hope Hussung
2366. Horace Witt
2367. Howard Bagwell
2368. Howard Zuckerman
2369. Hugh D Howard Sr
2370. Hunter Demster
2371. Hunter Shaw
2372. Huver Aguirre
2373. Hyo Chung
2374. Ian Doig
2375. Idelisses Medina
2376. Idella Rogers
2377. Imalda Starling
2378. India Freeman
2379. India Geary
2380. Indika Wijesekera
2381. Inell Hairston
2382. Inger Washington
2383. Ingrid Cox
2384. Ingrid Smyrna
2385. Ingrid Stanley
2386. Irene Etheridge
2387. Irene Smith
2388. Irina Levendi
2389. Iris Butler
2390. Iris Durand
2391. Irma Banda
2392. Isaac Tanner
2393. Isabel Garcia
Mobley
2394. Isabella Therres
2395. Isabella Williams
2396. Isaiah Robinson
2397. Isela Flores
2398. Isemana Jean
2399. Ismail Kakembo
2400. Israel Quesada
2401. Itisha Germany
2402. Ivory Rachal
Thompson
2403. Iwoyna Eubanks
2404. Iza Pyatt
2405. Izel Sterling
2406. J.Richard Haynes
2407. Jack Bauswell
2408. Jackie Burns
2409. Jackie Gerrity
2410. Jackie Lambert
2411. Jackie Miller
2412. Jackie Sponaugle
2413. Jackqueline Brooks
2414. Jaclyn Sabogal-
Murillo
2415. Jaclyn Schlegel
2416. Jacob Benavidez
2417. Jacob Bennett
2418. Jacob Boswell
2419. Jacob Lau
2420. Jacob Shaddock
2421. Jacob Shelton
2422. Jacob Woloshin
2423. Jacque Jones
2424. Jacque Warner
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 79 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2425. Jacquelin
Manfredonia
2426. Jacqueline Adams
2427. Jacqueline Bell
2428. Jacqueline Brown
2429. Jacqueline Campbell
2430. Jacqueline Costello
2431. Jacqueline Etherton
2432. Jacqueline Garner
2433. Jacqueline Hall
2434. Jacqueline Jackson
2435. Jacqueline King
2436. Jacqueline Lockie
2437. Jacqueline Sandoval
2438. Jacqueline Triplett
2439. Jacqueline Williams
2440. Jacqueline Williams
2441. Jacqueline Wilson
2442. Jacquelyn Chaffee
2443. Jacquelyn Johnston
2444. Jacqui Kelly
2445. Jade Frazier
2446. Jade Smith
2447. Jaden Price
2448. Jahana Favor
2449. Jaime Black
2450. Jaime Oleary
2451. Jaime Padro
2452. Jake Francis
2453. Jake Keller
2454. Jake Magner
2455. Jakeiry Canady
2456. Jakhia Turner
2457. Jaleesha Thomas
2458. Jalica Nieves
2459. Jalinda Slaton
2460. Jamara Moore
2461. Jamarr Simmons
2462. Jamel Johnson
2463. James Bitter
2464. James Buechler
2465. James Burchett
2466. James Corley
2467. James Cowan
2468. James England
2469. James Fish
2470. James Franklin
2471. James Freeney
2472. James Fuson
2473. James Garling
2474. James Gray
2475. James Greco
2476. James Green
2477. James Green
2478. James Hermanson
2479. James Hour
2480. James Hsieh
2481. James Justh
2482. James Kavanagh
2483. James Kristie
2484. James Laarveld
2485. James Ladd
2486. James Lanz
2487. James Marron
2488. James McIvor
2489. James Medlin
2490. James Meier
2491. James Moody
2492. James Nyoks
2493. James Plotner
2494. James Poor
2495. James Quaid
2496. James Ray
2497. James Riley
2498. James Searles
2499. James Smith
2500. James Swift
2501. James Turnage Sr.
2502. James Valenzano
2503. James Wallace
2504. James Walsh
2505. James White
2506. James Wilson
2507. James Wyatt
2508. James Yates
2509. Jami Sikes
2510. Jamie Barger
2511. Jamie Barker
2512. Jamie Barnes
2513. Jamie Bronson
2514. Jamie Bruner
2515. Jamie Bulmann
2516. Jamie Cieslak
2517. Jamie Colvin
2518. Jamie Cox
2519. Jamie Fair
2520. Jamie Franklin
2521. Jamie Hodges
2522. Jamie Lee Watson
2523. Jamie Loera
2524. Jamie Mayou
2525. Jamie Peterson
2526. Jamie Prerost
2527. Jamie Reis
2528. Jamie Renner
2529. Jamie Sheldon
2530. Jamie Stieve
2531. Jamie Taylor
2532. Jamie Thompson
2533. Jamina Glover
2534. Jamisha Pryor
2535. Jamiyha Scott
2536. Jan Mathews
2537. Jana Davis
2538. Jana Lanier
2539. Jana Webb
2540. Janae McDonald
2541. Jane Cozby
2542. Jane Gulbranson
2543. Jane Ravenel
2544. Janea Coleman
2545. Janeen Standley
2546. Janel Burgos
2547. Janelle Daniels
2548. Janen Guilty
2549. Janet Askins
2550. Janet Brown
2551. Janet Cotton
2552. Janet Friis
2553. Janet Hannemann
2554. Janet Lane
2555. Janette Dangelo
2556. Janice Adam
2557. Janice Donigan
2558. Janice Gonzales
2559. Janice Knoblock
2560. Janice Lipson
2561. Janice McKennon
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 80 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2562. Janice Odaniel
2563. Janice Pekelo
2564. Janice Thomas
2565. Janie Sosa
2566. Janie White
2567. Janine Sabella
2568. Janiya Owens
2569. Jannette Imasa
2570. Jannette Rackley
2571. Jaquala Watson
2572. Jaqueline Barreto
2573. Jaqueline Jaqueline
2574. Jared Blair
2575. Jared Cook
2576. Jared Richards
2577. Jarrett Brandon
2578. Jasette Hearn
2579. Jasmain Simmons
2580. Jasman Lewis
2581. Jasmin Mardis
2582. Jasmin Potts
2583. Jasmine Gonzalez
2584. Jasmine Kittling
2585. Jasmine Wiggins
2586. Jasmine Young
2587. Jason Armijo
2588. Jason Bachove
2589. Jason Bentley
2590. Jason Billich
2591. Jason Cato
2592. Jason Ellison
2593. Jason Hall
2594. Jason Hardy
2595. Jason Henry
2596. Jason Jennings
2597. Jason Mason
2598. Jason Miller
2599. Jason Miller
2600. Jason Neubold
2601. Jason Parks
2602. Jason Pope
2603. Jason Protopopov
2604. Jason Ray
2605. Jason Rhode
2606. Jason Sanchez
2607. Jason Sensiba
2608. Jason Sutton
2609. Jason Wringer
2610. Javery Satcher
2611. Javon Kirk
2612. Jay Goodley
2613. Jay Owens Sr
2614. Jayme Ellis
2615. Jayme Williams
2616. Jazmin Jones
2617. Jazmin Ruiz
2618. Jazmine Hutton
2619. Jean Alvarez
2620. Jean Dunn
2621. Jean Joseph
2622. Jean Juisto
2623. Jean Viglione
2624. Jeanene Gilmore
2625. Jeanette Ames
2626. Jeanette Cline
2627. Jeanette G Rivas
2628. Jeanette Jackson
2629. Jeanette Portillo
2630. Jeanette Tomaselli
2631. Jeanette Varnado
2632. Jeannetta McElroy
2633. Jeannette Recio
2634. Jeannette Rodgers
2635. Jeannie Black
2636. Jeannie Faamatau
2637. Jeannie Karlowski
2638. Jeannine Alvarado
2639. Jeccica Skolfield
2640. Jeff Andersen
2641. Jeff Bachman
2642. Jeff Carman
2643. Jeff Fleurival
2644. Jeff Hlebek
2645. Jeff Johnson
2646. Jeff Whittinghill
2647. Jeffery Blain
2648. Jeffery Thomas
2649. Jeffrey Abrams
2650. Jeffrey Bowen
2651. Jeffrey Brown
2652. Jeffrey Culp
2653. Jeffrey Doyle
2654. Jeffrey Harrison
2655. Jeffrey Parker
2656. Jeffrey Stover
2657. Jeffrey Williams
2658. Jen William S
2659. Jeni Tyrell
2660. Jenifer Gutke
2661. Jenifer Mendoza
2662. Jenise McNeal
2663. Jenna Dahlen
2664. Jenna Ring
2665. Jennie Corona-Cantu
2666. Jennie Guting
2667. Jennie Probert
2668. Jennifer Adams
2669. Jennifer Arroyo
2670. Jennifer Barker
2671. Jennifer Biggs
2672. Jennifer Bohorquez
2673. Jennifer Bolotin
2674. Jennifer Branham
2675. Jennifer Brewbaker
2676. Jennifer Burrell
2677. Jennifer Canterbury
2678. Jennifer Carcione
2679. Jennifer Corales
2680. Jennifer Deluca
2681. Jennifer Diaz
2682. Jennifer Duval
2683. Jennifer Edrington
2684. Jennifer Egley
2685. Jennifer Fischer
2686. Jennifer Frisby
2687. Jennifer Gibson
2688. Jennifer Graham
2689. Jennifer Graul
2690. Jennifer Hamblin
2691. Jennifer Hamilton
2692. Jennifer Hammonds
2693. Jennifer Hancock
2694. Jennifer Harrell
2695. Jennifer Hauser
2696. Jennifer Hawkins
2697. Jennifer Holmgren
2698. Jennifer Jara
2699. Jennifer Jessee
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 81 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2700. Jennifer Jordan
2701. Jennifer Kinsey
2702. Jennifer Kirchgesler
2703. Jennifer Kroman
2704. Jennifer Kuhn
2705. Jennifer Lambert
2706. Jennifer Lebron
2707. Jennifer Lunsford
2708. Jennifer Macmillan
2709. Jennifer Malone
2710. Jennifer Martinez-
Sanchez
2711. Jennifer Mathis
2712. Jennifer McDonald
2713. Jennifer McIntosh
2714. Jennifer Melton
2715. Jennifer Mendibles
2716. Jennifer Merdian
2717. Jennifer Merriman
2718. Jennifer Panther
2719. Jennifer Pierson
2720. Jennifer Ramos
2721. Jennifer Randle
2722. Jennifer Rentz
2723. Jennifer Riggs
2724. Jennifer Robinson
2725. Jennifer Ruden
2726. Jennifer Scofield
2727. Jennifer Scott
2728. Jennifer Shirley
2729. Jennifer Smith
2730. Jennifer Squier
2731. Jennifer Stennis
2732. Jennifer Stephenson
2733. Jennifer Stoops
2734. Jennifer Strader
2735. Jennifer Thompson
2736. Jennifer Turner
2737. Jennifer Wesolowski
2738. Jennifer Wright
2739. Jenniqua Lopez
2740. Jenny Alvarado
2741. Jenny Mathis
2742. Jenny Saturday
2743. Jenny Segundo
2744. Jenny Toy
2745. Jeraldine Slappy
2746. Jeramie Bryan
2747. Jeramy Gooden
2748. Jeremy Algiere
2749. Jeremy Davis
2750. Jeremy Hauck
2751. Jeremy Kurtenbach
2752. Jeremy Ladusaw
2753. Jeremy Longoria
2754. Jeremy McCauley
2755. Jeremy Wiedenroth
2756. Jeri Cooper
2757. Jeriecka Bolton
2758. Jeriza Ayson
2759. Jermaine Abron
2760. Jerome Butler
2761. Jerome Garcia
2762. Jeron Howie
2763. Jerrick Fowler
2764. Jerry Burkhead
2765. Jerry Casillas
2766. Jerry Hardegree
2767. Jerry Johnson
2768. Jerry Pace
2769. Jerry Seguin
2770. Jerry Turley
2771. Jerson Valdes
2772. Jesica Underwood
2773. Jesika Brodiski
2774. Jess Martinez
2775. Jesse Battle
2776. Jesse Davis
2777. Jesse Isaacs
2778. Jesse Stone
2779. Jesseca Powell
2780. Jesseica Elliott
2781. Jessica Aikins
2782. Jessica Ault
2783. Jessica Black
2784. Jessica Buie
2785. Jessica Burbine
2786. Jessica Carter
2787. Jessica Coleman
2788. Jessica Collier
2789. Jessica Cosper
2790. Jessica Crooks
2791. Jessica Diaz
2792. Jessica Dykstra
2793. Jessica Forshay
2794. Jessica Friedman
2795. Jessica Gann
2796. Jessica Gregory
2797. Jessica Groshong
2798. Jessica Grubbs
2799. Jessica Guy
2800. Jessica Harlow
2801. Jessica Harvey
2802. Jessica Hayes
2803. Jessica Kruszka
2804. Jessica Lock
2805. Jessica Marcantel
2806. Jessica Martinez
2807. Jessica McClinton
2808. Jessica Milner
2809. Jessica Mroz
2810. Jessica Nace
2811. Jessica Naus
2812. Jessica Parker
2813. Jessica Patton
2814. Jessica Peak
2815. Jessica Potter
2816. Jessica Preece
2817. Jessica Ransdell
2818. Jessica Reed
2819. Jessica Richardson
2820. Jessica Russman
2821. Jessica Ryan
2822. Jessica Ryan
2823. Jessica Scruggs
2824. Jessica Sowinski
2825. Jessica Stark
2826. Jessica Stevens
Dubuque
2827. Jessica Vaughn
2828. Jessica Vaughn
2829. Jessica Weber
2830. Jessica Williams
2831. Jessica Xagoraris
2832. Jessica Ybarra
2833. Jessie Israel
2834. Jessie Kennedy
2835. Jessie Mae Gorham
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 82 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2836. Jessie Ramon
2837. Jesus Gutierrez
2838. Jesus Rivera
2839. Jesus Trujillo
Alvarado
2840. Jesus Tucker
2841. Jewell Browning
2842. Jewell Robinson
2843. Jhosmil Alvarado
2844. Jigar Patel
2845. Jigar Patel
2846. Jill Baruch
2847. Jill Collins
2848. Jill Hodge
2849. Jill Nunn
2850. Jillian Colin
2851. Jillian Russell
2852. Jillian Silas
2853. Jim Diplacito
2854. Jim Spernyak
2855. Jimmie Thorne
2856. Jimmy Decker
2857. Jimmy Kang
2858. Jimmy Pruitt
2859. Jimmy Williams
2860. Jimonie Ricks
2861. Jiovante Hemphill
2862. Jo Ellen McClendon
2863. Joan Newsome-
White
2864. Joann Hyatt
2865. Joann Martello
2866. Joann Norred
2867. Joanna Ambruoso
2868. Joanna Ramirez
2869. Joanne Blair
2870. Joanne De La Cruz
Beras
2871. Joanne Maier
2872. Joanne Natale
2873. Joanne Spadaro
2874. Joanne Vannier
2875. Joaquin Garcia
2876. Jocelyn Chandler
2877. Jocelyn Perdew
2878. Jodi Katzeff
2879. Jodi Kirk
2880. Jodi Manion
2881. Jodie Lippert
2882. Jody Alcantara
2883. Jody Duke
2884. Jody Ennis
2885. Jody Mooneyham
2886. Jody Riley
2887. Joe Carter
2888. Joe Cheek
2889. Joe Starling
2890. Joe Washum
2891. Joel Dinovo
2892. Joel Gdowski
2893. Joele Cummings
2894. Joell Williams
2895. Joellen Petrillo
2896. Joette Cotta
2897. Johannah Miller
2898. Johanne Wagner
2899. John Ballard
2900. John Banning
2901. John Boutwell
2902. John Brooks
2903. John Bruton
2904. John Byrd
2905. John Cameron
2906. John Caminero
2907. John Campbell
2908. John Canterbury
2909. John Carroll
2910. John Chavez
2911. John Cooper
2912. John Corvin
2913. John Cox
2914. John Craze
2915. John Croteauj
2916. John Damron
2917. John Davis
2918. John Dickson
2919. John Douglass
2920. John E Zacher
2921. John Farrell
2922. John Fecteau
2923. John Ford
2924. John Freeland
2925. John Griner
2926. John Hawley
2927. John Hegel
2928. John Hopper
2929. John Horan
2930. John Jewell Lll
2931. John Jones
2932. John Jordan
2933. John Larson
2934. John Legg
2935. John Luiz
2936. John Martinez
2937. John Masangkay
2938. John Masciopinto
2939. John Middleton
2940. John Mitchell
2941. John Mitchell
2942. John Neibergall
2943. John Ortiz
2944. John Reid
2945. John Roberts
2946. John Rose
2947. John Russell
2948. John Seigart
2949. John Storey
2950. John Strain
2951. John Tohidi
2952. John Toro
2953. John Waitman
2954. John Walters
2955. John Witt
2956. John Wu
2957. Johnathon Russell
2958. Johnica Tart
2959. Johnna Bailey
2960. Johnna Christeson
2961. Johnnie Hollis
2962. Johnnie Villanueva
2963. Johnny Brown
2964. Johnny Cohem
2965. Johnny Goins
2966. Johnny Holman
2967. Johnny Howard
2968. Johnny Lottie
2969. Johnny Martinez
2970. Johnny Prihoda
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 83 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

2971. Jolee Wooten
2972. Jolene (Nichele)
Bergmanis
2973. Jolene Phipps
2974. Jolene Williams
2975. Jon Pour
2976. Jonathan Askew
2977. Jonathan Clausell
2978. Jonathan Gabrielli
2979. Jonathan Ramirez
Sr.
2980. Jonathan Roberts
2981. Jonathan Ruiz
2982. Jonathan Walker
2983. Jonathan Widener
2984. Jonathon Kramer
2985. Jonathon Willis
2986. Jonedward
Meacham
2987. Jonell Davis
2988. Joni Cliff
2989. Joni Pope
2990. Joni Seal
2991. Jonna Lybrand
2992. Jordan Alexander
2993. Jordan Brown
2994. Jordan Dobrowski
2995. Jordan Stauffer
2996. Jordan Wright
2997. Jorge Carrasco
2998. Jorge Dominguez
2999. Jorge Perez
3000. Jorge Plasencia
3001. Jorge Servin
3002. Jose A Soto Velez
3003. Jose Mateo
3004. Jose Vargas
3005. Joseph Bugliarelli
3006. Joseph Bulliner
3007. Joseph Chandler
3008. Joseph Cort
3009. Joseph Cupp
3010. Joseph Deshields
3011. Joseph Fain
3012. Joseph Ficci
3013. Joseph Forrest
3014. Joseph Gildow
3015. Joseph Hauptman
3016. Joseph Igneczi
3017. Joseph Isaacs III
3018. Joseph Lenart
3019. Joseph Limas
3020. Joseph Lipuma
3021. Joseph Love Sr
3022. Joseph Malta
3023. Joseph McDonald
3024. Joseph Meyering
3025. Joseph Moeller
3026. Joseph Negron
3027. Joseph Pfeil
3028. Joseph Ricci
3029. Joseph Sided
3030. Joseph Vazquez
3031. Joseph Westfall
3032. Joseph Williams
3033. Josephine Pettit
3034. Josette Brown
3035. Josh Mercurio
3036. Josh Slinger
3037. Joshalynn Green
3038. Joshua Baakko
3039. Joshua Beadle
3040. Joshua Brooks
3041. Joshua Cook
3042. Joshua Escobar
3043. Joshua Gilpin
3044. Joshua Hiles
3045. Joshua Kirkpatrick
3046. Joshua Lovett
3047. Joshua Maclachlan
3048. Joshua Pace
3049. Joshua Parks
3050. Joshua Rahymes
3051. Joshua Wilcox
3052. Joshua Wilson
3053. Josue Jimenez
3054. Jovan Wilson
3055. Jovelle De Guzman
3056. Jovette Robinson
3057. Joy Banfield
3058. Joy Beatty
3059. Joy Camp
3060. Joy Heinzke
3061. Joy Perry
3062. Joyaparis Walston
3063. Joyce Babitz
3064. Joyce Corvalan
3065. Joyce Earl
3066. Joyce Falatovich
3067. Joyce Geising
3068. Joyce Kelley
3069. Joyce Lesley
3070. Joyce Massad
3071. Joyce Noel
3072. Joyce Ratliff
3073. Joyce Valente
3074. Juan Adan
3075. Juan Alvarez
3076. Juan Batise
3077. Juan Benavente
3078. Juan Delgado
3079. Juan Flores
3080. Juanita Bland
3081. Juanita Bowens
3082. Juanita Key
3083. Juanita Morales
3084. Judi Vandeveer
3085. Judieth Russell
3086. Judith Belcourt
3087. Judith Cory
3088. Judith Hurt
3089. Judy Ellis
3090. Judy Ingolia
3091. Judy Kisling
3092. Judy Ried
3093. Judy Thompson
3094. Juel Alfred
3095. Jujo Ballo
3096. Julia Chapman
3097. Julia Denardo
3098. Julia Etzweiler
3099. Julia Jensen
3100. Julia Miles
3101. Julia Stephenson
3102. Julian Hodge
3103. Julianah Dewitt
3104. Julianna Labul
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 84 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3105. Julianna
Zimmerman
3106. Julianne Kovein
3107. Julie Colter
3108. Julie Danjou
3109. Julie Dargis
3110. Julie Faber
3111. Julie Gonzales
3112. Julie Govier
3113. Julie Hodges
3114. Julie House
3115. Julie Johnson
3116. Julie Mackenzie
3117. Julie Marthaller
3118. Julie Ruddle
3119. Julie Utley
3120. Julie Walker
3121. Julie Ward
3122. Juliet Szagola
3123. Juliette Gonzales
3124. Julio Amaya
3125. Julio Brice
3126. Jumilyn Tabladillo
3127. Justeen Owens
3128. Justin Asti
3129. Justin Bakker
3130. Justin Belcher
3131. Justin Callahan
3132. Justin Carr
3133. Justin Cole
3134. Justin Collins
3135. Justin Hadad
3136. Justin Henderson
3137. Justin Hieter
3138. Justin Ingram
3139. Justin Levin
3140. Justin Russo
3141. Justin Walker
3142. Justin Watson
3143. Justin Willis
3144. Justina Dresler
3145. Justina Poulson
3146. Justina Pratt
3147. Justine Evans
3148. Jwan Moyler-Moore
3149. Jynell Hurst
3195. Karen Wilson
3196. Karen Wood
3197. Karen Woolfolk
3198. Karesha Walker
3199. Karey Smith
3200. Karin Vilardi
3201. Karina Lemus
3202. Karissa Dubose
3203. Karl McDonald
3204. Karl Mong
3205. Karl Newton
3206. Karl Zolkos
3207. Karla Rose
3208. Karlas Mauzy
3209. Karlynn Jordan
3210. Karonda Crayton
3211. Karry Divers
3212. Karsyn Bemis
3213. Karyl Chester
3214. Karyn Luff
3215. Kasandra Cox
3216. Kasey Webber
3217. Kashaunna Crowley
3218. Kashawna Ferguson
3219. Kashia Johnson
3220. Kasiah Harrison
3221. Kassam
Abuhamande
3222. Kassandra Gervais
3223. Kassandra Malta
3224. Kasuna Habler
3225. Kate Egan
3226. Kate Hindes
3227. Kate Kimball
3228. Katelyn Cantaroni
3229. Katelyn Futrell
3230. Katelyn Landry
3231. Katelynn Barnes
3232. Katerina Gilday
3233. Katharine Dore
3234. Katharine Olnas
3235. Katherina Bjerkness
3236. Katherine Blazick
3237. Katherine Cockrum
3238. Katherine Eikenberg
3239. Katherine Hansen
3150. Kacee Hoffman
3151. Kadijah Houston
3152. Kaichel Joseph
3153. Kaila Reinhardt
3154. Kailyn Shaw
3155. Kaitlin Andre
3156. Kaitlynn Reynolds
3157. Kaitlynn Robinson
3158. Kalsey Harrison
3159. Kalyca Foster
3160. Kamae Dixon
3161. Kandace Mathews
3162. Kandice Blades
3163. Kandy Lovato
3164. Kara Au-Young
3165. Kara Dean
3166. Kara Kirkpatrick
3167. Kara Rogers
3168. Karah Robinson
3169. Karen Aberra
3170. Karen Benoit
3171. Karen Bobbitt
3172. Karen Carter
3173. Karen Cook
3174. Karen Crawford
Theobald
3175. Karen Diaz
3176. Karen Donner
3177. Karen Eastman
3178. Karen Eaton
3179. Karen Foley
3180. Karen Foti Williams
3181. Karen Gillen
3182. Karen Govern
3183. Karen Habib
3184. Karen Hall
3185. Karen Hein
3186. Karen Jewell
3187. Karen Luerssen
3188. Karen Martin
3189. Karen Natt
3190. Karen Newton
3191. Karen Olguin
3192. Karen Shimanek
3193. Karen Smiley
3194. Karen Varnado
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 85 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3240. Katherine Hensley
3241. Katherine Johnson
3242. Katherine Kirby
3243. Katherine Laird
3244. Katherine Robbin
3245. Katherine Snedigar
3246. Katherine Williams
3247. Katherine Zeigler
3248. Kathi Thomas
3249. Kathie Page
3250. Kathleen Carlson
(Watson)
3251. Kathleen Carter
3252. Kathleen Chiocca
3253. Kathleen Cline
3254. Kathleen Marcum
3255. Kathleen Mundy
3256. Kathlene Green
3257. Kathryn Hulbert
3258. Kathryn Husmann
3259. Kathryn Rohrer
3260. Kathryn Roop
3261. Kathryn Trainor
3262. Kathryn Walls
3263. Kathy Ahmed
3264. Kathy Alston
3265. Kathy Ashley
3266. Kathy Cody
3267. Kathy Divan
3268. Kathy Elizondo
3269. Kathy Henderson
3270. Kathy Jones
3271. Kathy Kay
3272. Kathy Madden
3273. Kathy Secor
3274. Kathy Sirmans
3275. Kathy Stambaugh
3276. Kathy Taing
3277. Kathy Tatum
3278. Kathy Torres
3279. Kathysnn Valentino
3280. Katie Cassidy
3281. Katie Curry
3282. Katie Jenkins
3283. Katie Knapp
3284. Katie Longshore
3285. Katie Lowe
3286. Katie Norton
3287. Katie Osborne
3288. Katie Walker
3289. Katrice Phillip
3290. Katrina Blalock
3291. Katrina Gilbert
3292. Katrina Johnson
3293. Katrina Peralta
3294. Katrina Pioquinto
3295. Katrina Serell
3296. Katrina Slaughter
3297. Katrisse Tannis
3298. Katy Gibson
3299. Kavonna Smith
3300. Kaycee Messmer
3301. Kaye Carroll
3302. Kayla Appel
3303. Kayla Cacciamani
3304. Kayla Drevenak
3305. Kayla Epple
3306. Kayla Flowers
3307. Kayla Hoge
3308. Kayla Looney
3309. Kayla Maldonado
3310. Kaylee Selph
3311. Kaylynn De Los
Santos Torres
3312. Kazu Nagahama
3313. Keenan Watkins
3314. Keianna Bates
3315. Keisha McLaurin
3316. Keisha Rabon
3317. Keisha Rowland
3318. Keisha Watson
3319. Keishauna Minor
3320. Keith Atwood
3321. Keith Curry
3322. Keith Deteau
3323. Keith Geising
3324. Keith Hollatz
3325. Keith King
3326. Keith McDonough
3327. Keith Platts
3328. Keith Stalker
3329. Keith Woodson
3330. Keith-Allen
Anderson Iii
3331. Keithan Simmons
3332. Keiyoka Norman
3333. Kellen Billups
3334. Kelley Crowley
3335. Kelley Hamilton
3336. Kelli Adams
3337. Kelli Ford
3338. Kelli Marie Kyle
3339. Kelli McClure
3340. Kelli Ozug
3341. Kelli Stern
3342. Kelli Stevenson
3343. Kellie Wiley
3344. Kelly Baird
3345. Kelly Carroll
3346. Kelly Cunningham
3347. Kelly Davis
3348. Kelly Donaldson
3349. Kelly Eglinton
3350. Kelly Estes
3351. Kelly Hogan
3352. Kelly Jones
3353. Kelly Lemons
3354. Kelly Lesher
3355. Kelly Long
3356. Kelly Longley
3357. Kelly Maas
3358. Kelly Martin
3359. Kelly McStay
3360. Kelly Monteverde
3361. Kelly Naegele
3362. Kelly Ritchie
3363. Kelly Roberts
3364. Kelly Russell
3365. Kelly Sanders
3366. Kelly Schauwecker
3367. Kelly Stark
3368. Kelly Townsend
3369. Kelly Wilson
3370. Kelly Wood
3371. Kelly Young
3372. Kelsey Carter
3373. Kelsey McGehee
3374. Kelsey Robertson
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 86 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3375. Kelvin Gathings
3376. Kelvin Nguyen
3377. Kemelle Howell
3378. Ken Cornelius Jr
3379. Ken Hicks
3380. Ken Petersen
3381. Kendra Demello
3382. Kendra Gaines
3383. Kendra Lee
3384. Kendra Mitchell
3385. Kendra Shell
3386. Kenndreya Harris
3387. Kenneth Brackin
3388. Kenneth Bresock
3389. Kenneth Campbell
3390. Kenneth Cummings
3391. Kenneth Gibson
3392. Kenneth Hallquist
3393. Kenneth Harris
3394. Kenneth Petersen
3395. Kenneth Thurman
3396. Kenneth Wheeler
3397. Kent Jones
3398. Kenya Mack
3399. Kenya Scott
3400. Kenyetta Watt
3401. Kenyon Simpson
3402. Kenyota Straughter
3403. Kerensa Parke
3404. Keri Marinelli
3405. Keri Scott
3406. Kerri Helme
3407. Kerry Newman
3408. Kesha Peppers
3409. Keshia Ayala
3410. Keshona Brown
3411. Keshona Williams
3412. Ketri Landrum
3413. Kevin Ashley
3414. Kevin Bare
3415. Kevin Biggs
3416. Kevin Bump
3417. Kevin Cotton
3418. Kevin Dolgos
3419. Kevin Flores
3420. Kevin Hodgson
3466. Kimberly Bailey
3467. Kimberly Benjamin
3468. Kimberly Burton
3469. Kimberly Butler
3470. Kimberly Clark
3471. Kimberly Collins
3472. Kimberly Dotson
3473. Kimberly Downs
3474. Kimberly Edwards
3475. Kimberly Golden
3476. Kimberly Gramt
3477. Kimberly
Greenwood
3478. Kimberly Hagan
3479. Kimberly Hammett
3480. Kimberly Hansen
3481. Kimberly Hayden
3482. Kimberly Hollie
3483. Kimberly Hubbard
3484. Kimberly Lewis
3485. Kimberly Merrill
Bowen
3486. Kimberly Natelli
3487. Kimberly Neumann
3488. Kimberly Pless
3489. Kimberly Powell
3490. Kimberly Protzman
3491. Kimberly Rachau
3492. Kimberly Seaholtz
3493. Kimberly St Pierre
3494. Kimberly Stansberry
3495. Kimberly Williams
3496. Kimberly Willis
3497. Kimberly Wilson
3498. Kimberly Winslow
3499. Kimika Adamson
3500. Kimmeka Lewis
3501. Kimyatta Woods
3502. Kirby Holt
3503. Kirk Berrier
3504. Kirk Ericksen
3505. Kirk Ritenour
3506. Kirk York
3507. Kirksti Bish
3508. Kirsten Dowler
3509. Kisa Candy
3421. Kevin Laster
3422. Kevin Livous
3423. Kevin Mamach
3424. Kevin Mancilla
3425. Kevin Mayhand
3426. Kevin McElligott
3427. Kevin Papageorge
3428. Kevin Robertson
3429. Kevin Scott
3430. Kevin Seaks
3431. Kevin Sutherlin
3432. Kevin Walls
3433. Kevin Whitlock
3434. Kevinl Jordan
3435. Keyairra Anderson
3436. Keyona Miller
3437. Keyonna Hunt
3438. Khalifa El Hara
3439. Khazyah Pittman-
Perry
3440. Kheeda Cruickshank
3441. Kheirra Figueroa
3442. Kia Leslie
3443. Kiani Keelen
3444. Kiara Bunting
3445. Kierra Gardner
3446. Kierston Pierce
3447. Kim Bless
3448. Kim Bralens
3449. Kim Byrd
3450. Kim Comeau
3451. Kim Davis
3452. Kim Dyllain
3453. Kim Gaffen
3454. Kim Jackson
3455. Kim Meczywor
3456. Kimberly Runyan
3457. Kim Sisemore
3458. Kim Ungerer
3459. Kim Wakefield
3460. Kim Wilson
3461. Kimberi Sanford
3462. Kimberlee Page
3463. Kimberley Cranford
3464. Kimberley Pfligler
3465. Kimberly Adams
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 87 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3510. Kisha Fenty
3511. Kisha Linton
3512. Kissia Agurto
3513. Kittie Johnson
3514. Klinten Craig
3515. Kori Wurangian
3516. Korinne Jode
3517. Kourtnee Sosthand
3518. Kransetta Bronson
3519. Kressie Hires
3520. Kris Barragan
3521. Kristine McMillin
3522. Kris Rutherford
3523. Krishna Brown
3524. Krista Bales
3525. Krista Bowman
3526. Krista Burks
3527. Krista Gossett
3528. Krista Kilgore
3529. Krista Kinkle
3530. Krista Vickery
3531. Kristal De Alba
3532. Kristen Coghlan
3533. Kristen Finnerty
3534. Kristen Jimenez
3535. Kristen Junkins
3536. Kristen Kucera
3537. Kristen Taylor
3538. Kristen Twine
3539. Kristen Yukna
3540. Kristena Reed
3541. Kristi Bedford
3542. Kristi Jacobs
3543. Kristi Jameson
3544. Kristi Kenley
3545. Kristian Sanchez
3546. Kristie Cheek
3547. Kristie Haag
3548. Kristie Perry
3549. Kristie Tanner
3550. Kristin Hooge
3551. Kristin Johnson
3552. Kristin Morton
3553. Kristin Peterson
3554. Kristin Shurney
3555. Kristina Clanton
3599. Ladroyce Conker
3600. Lafaye Davis
3601. Lahoma Johnson
3602. Laina Jenkins
3603. Lainie Levinson
3604. Lakeesha Jackson
3605. Lakeisha Dorsey
3606. Lakeisha Harris
3607. Lakesha Hardnett
3608. Lakesha Williams
3609. Lakeshia Daniels
3610. Lakeshia Gemes
3611. Laketa Boswell
3612. Lakisha Bolden
3613. Lakisha Thigpen
3614. Lakisha White
3615. Lamar Strode
3616. Lamecia Merchant
3617. Lamisha Wade
3618. Lamonica Smithson
3619. Lamonika
Hammonds
3620. Lamont Lathan
3621. Lana Downs
3622. Lanae Johnson
3623. Lanae Smith
3624. Lance Ogle
3625. Lance Robinson
3626. Lance White
3627. Laniek Johnson
3628. Lanysha Anderson
3629. Laquana
Washington
3630. Laquanda Johnson
3631. Laquawn Edwards
3632. Laquisha Hopkins
3633. Laquisia Williams
3634. Laquita Strong
3635. Laqwesha Stephens
3636. Larion Krayzman
3637. Larmea Cole
3638. Larrica Alexander
3639. Larry Barber
3640. Larry Barnes
3641. Larry Caballero
3642. Larry Demula
3556. Kristina Delarosa
3557. Kristina French
3558. Kristina Kahila
3559. Kristina Lynch
3560. Kristina Martirosyan
3561. Kristina Palmer
3562. Kristine Deklotz
3563. Kristine McCaslin
3564. Kristine Robins
3565. Kristine Zamora
3566. Kristy Flores
3567. Kristy Jefford
3568. Kristy Matz
3569. Kristy Neveker
3570. Krystal Matthews
3571. Krystal Pinsonneault
3572. Krystal Ratliff
3573. Krystal Rodriguez
3574. Krystal Rose San
Juan
3575. Krystale Booker
3576. Krystale Carradine
3577. Krystina Cooney
3578. Krystle Steed
3579. Kryston Kemp
3580. Krystyn White
3581. Kurt Summers
3582. Kurumi Aoyama
3583. Kyandra Glover
3584. Kyesha Carney
3585. Kyle Miller
3586. Kyle Robertson
3587. Kyle Sundgren
3588. Kyren Tenneson
3589. Kyreon Williams
3590. L'Erin Cameron
Ragon
3591. La Donna Binkerd
3592. Lacheryl Oneal
3593. Laci Thornton
3594. Lacie Davis
3595. Ladeene Spiller-
Lewis
3596. Ladonna Dennis
3597. Ladonna Ford
3598. Ladonna Taylor
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 88 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3643. Larry Di Scenza
3644. Larry Geisler
3645. Larry Rosin
3646. Larry Ruff
3647. Larry Stein
3648. Lasandra Lott
3649. Laschanda Johnson
3650. Lashandra Prince-
Bell
3651. Lashawn Ayres
3652. Lashawn Johnson
Crayton
3653. Lasherra Melvin
3654. Lashesta Taylor
3655. Lashonda Moody
3656. Lashondra Malone
3657. Lasona Smith
3658. Lasonya Townsend
3659. Latarcha Jones
3660. Latasha Grant
3661. Latasha Marshall
3662. Latasha Miller
3663. Lateesha Green
3664. Lateisha Murphy
3665. Latess Drummer
3666. Latiana Hicks
3667. Latisha Dorsey
3668. Latisha Forward
3669. Latisha Jones
3670. Latisha Jordan
3671. Latisha Williams
3672. Latoia Travis
3673. Latonya Casper
3674. Latonya Gatlin
3675. Latonya Salter
3676. Latonya Simms
3677. Latosha Oneal
3678. Latoya Griffin
3679. Latoya Johnson
3680. Latoya Martin
3681. Latoya Massey
3682. Latoya McBride
3683. Latoya Olson
3684. Latoya Paige
3685. Latoya Smith
3686. Latoya Taylor
3731. Lawrence Hyman
3732. Lawrence Laviolette
3733. Leshay Smith
3734. Lea Cagle
3735. Lea Hume
3736. Lea Magaway
3737. Lea Schilke
3738. Leah Adkins
3739. Leah Campbell
3740. Leah Demkovich
3741. Leah Frost
3742. Leah Greco
3743. Leah Matlock
3744. Leah Pennington
3745. Leallen Gallion
3746. Leann Aguilar
3747. Leanna Ferguson
3748. Leanne Gower
3749. Leanne Ketchum
3750. Leanne Smith
3751. Lee Ann McCrae
3752. Lee Childs
3753. Lee Hamer
3754. Lee Rappeport
3755. Lee-Ann Adkins
3756. Leeanna Huntley
3757. Leela Marciel
3758. Leenetta
Holmesgaines
3759. Legia King
3760. Leigh Bucy
3761. Leigh Hargrove
3762. Leigh Moore
3763. Leila Mininall
3764. Leila Robbins
3765. Leilena Jones
3766. Leita Carter
3767. Lena Perez
3768. Lenae Griffin
3769. Lencola Roberts
3770. Lenesha Roberts
3771. Lenora Griffin
3772. Lenora Montgomery
3773. Lenora Rice
3774. Lenore Reisinger
3775. Leo Jones
3687. Latoya Whittler
3688. Latreka Edwards
3689. Latrice Evans
3690. Latricia Thompson
3691. Laura Ayard
3692. Laura Ballard
3693. Laura Deniz
3694. Laura Dennis
3695. Laura Gendelman
3696. Laura Gresham
3697. Laura Gutierrez
3698. Laura Hobbs
3699. Laura Ledesma
3700. Laura Lopez
3701. Laura Mann
3702. Laura Mezamendoza
3703. Laura Otero
3704. Laura Rios
3705. Laura Sawyer
3706. Laura Skinner
3707. Laura Villarreal
3708. Laura Williams
3709. Laura Williams
3710. Laura Willis Albrigo
3711. Laurel Ravert
3712. Lauren Baumeister
3713. Lauren Campbell
3714. Lauren Dubiel
3715. Lauren Johnson
3716. Lauren Lee
3717. Lauren Tisthammer
3718. Lauren Tolman
3719. Lauren Webb
3720. Lauren Wells
3721. Lauren Wilkinson
3722. Lauren Woods
3723. Laurie Jordan
3724. Laurin Scott
3725. Laurren Simms
3726. Laveeda Benton
3727. Lavinalaquesha
Smith
3728. Lawanda Walton
Gonzales
3729. Lawna Young
3730. Lawonia Moore
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 89 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3776. Leon Cobb
3777. Leon Houston
3778. Leon Howell
3779. Leonardo Medina
3780. Leonia Crook
3781. Lesa Chhin
3782. Lesa Donaghy
3783. Lesa Pryor
3784. Lesa Voelker
3785. Leslie Arrington
3786. Leslie Cedillo
3787. Leslie Henneman
3788. Leslie Lawrenson
3789. Leslie Stembridge
3790. Lester Pruyne
3791. Leta Eden
3792. Letha Jackson
3793. Leticia Smith
3794. Letitia Stephenson
3795. Levi Bivin
3796. Lexie Shephard
3797. Lia Ritchie
3798. Liborio Lopez
3799. Lidiya Guevara
3800. Liliana Mazzarino
3801. Lillian Williamson
3802. Lillie Mems
3803. Lilly Fyffe
3804. Linda Amell
3805. Linda Anderson
3806. Linda Ash
3807. Linda Banks
3808. Linda Barwick
3809. Linda Cannady
3810. Linda Clark
3811. Linda Franciskovic
3812. Linda Freeman
Howell
3813. Linda Freudenberger
3814. Linda Haney
3815. Linda Hendley
3816. Linda Hoffmann
3817. Linda Jackson
3818. Linda Kelley
3819. Linda Kerkau
3820. Linda L Brown
3821. Linda Lane
3822. Linda Lesabre
3823. Linda M Brass
3824. Linda Mayrand
3825. Linda McDaniel
3826. Linda Mierka
3827. Linda Miller
3828. Linda Morris
3829. Linda Mott
3830. Linda Pena
3831. Linda Tomlin
3832. Linda Vecchiollo
3833. Linda Young
3834. Lindsay Impson
3835. Lindsey Farrow
3836. Lindsey McCoy
3837. Lindy Waggoner
3838. Linnea Latham
3839. Linsbert Reynolds
3840. Linsey Lewicki
3841. Lisa Alajmi
3842. Lisa Barnes
3843. Lisa Bibbs
3844. Lisa Boyd
3845. Lisa Brakers
3846. Lisa Caskey
3847. Lisa Clanton
3848. Lisa Combs
3849. Lisa Costello
3850. Lisa Dickensheets
3851. Lisa Espigh
3852. Lisa Farrell
3853. Lisa Garcia
3854. Lisa Green
3855. Lisa Hale
3856. Lisa Harrison
3857. Lisa Hawkes
3858. Lisa Hunt
3859. Lisa Laird
3860. Lisa Lee
3861. Lisa Madson
3862. Lisa McCann
3863. Lisa McDonald
3864. Lisa McKee
3865. Lisa McQueen
3866. Lisa Norton
3867. Lisa Owens
3868. Lisa Petrarca
Kreamer
3869. Lisa Ramirez
3870. Lisa Reeves
3871. Lisa Roberts
3872. Lisa Shriver
3873. Lisa Spearman
3874. Lisa Staake
3875. Lisa Sundquist
3876. Lisa Swarn
3877. Lisa Talbott
3878. Lisa Tilburg
3879. Lisa Whiting
3880. Lisa Wood
3881. Lissa Davis
3882. Lissa Sims
3883. Lissette Holguin
3884. Lissette Miranda
3885. Liza Barlow
3886. Lois Sporleder
3887. Lloyd Armour
3888. Lois Curry
3889. Lol Choate
3890. London Sharpe
3891. Lonnie Wash
3892. Lonnie Weldon
3893. Lora Michaels
3894. Lora Mosher
3895. Lora Wilso
3896. Loretta Peterson
3897. Loretta Sturkie
3898. Lori Benoit
3899. Lori Bergman
3900. Lori Kleiss
3901. Lori Rusk
3902. Lori Snyder
3903. Lori Strom
3904. Lori Waller
3905. Lori Weeks
3906. Lori Wiley
3907. Lori Wilkinson
3908. Loriann Butts
3909. Lorie Munson
3910. Lorin Harris
3911. Lorina Nuessle
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 90 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

3912. Lorita Hawthorne
3913. Lorna Cole
3914. Lorraine Campbell
3915. Lorraine Dougherty
3916. Lorraine Salazar
3917. Lotoyo Collins
3918. Lou Bankston
3919. Louis Anselman
3920. Louis Frias
3921. Louise Cechowski
3922. Lourdes Gomez
3923. Lourdes Rodriguez
3924. Louri Graham
3925. Lovie Smith
3926. Lowanna Wilson
3927. Loyd Motteler
3928. Lsura Forsyth
3929. Lucia Lisa Honore
3930. Lucia Rivera
3931. Luciano Greco
3932. Lucille Falkner
3933. Lucinda Ouzts
3934. Luis Fortun
3935. Luis Matos
3936. Luis Nunez
3937. Luis Vaquera
3938. Luliia Litovchenko
3939. Luna Porter
3940. Luquantra Lane
3941. Luretha Williams
3942. Lurleen Briggs
3943. Lushell Williams
3944. Lusitana Martino
3945. Luzett Burks
3946. Lydia Brown
3947. Lydia Granados
3948. Lydia Lewis
3949. Lydia Lopez
3950. Lydia Salgado
3951. Lyka Niedzwiedz
3952. Lynda Bowie
3953. Lynda Desouza
3954. Lynda England
3955. Lynda Fafard
3956. Lynda Hall
3957. Lyndsey Kelley
3958. Lynette Mitchell
3959. Lynisha Barber
3960. Lynn Brown
3961. Lynn Heyner
3962. Lynn Jordan
3963. Lynn McGann
3964. Lynne Magruder
3965. Maria Esther
Gonzalez
3966. Mackenzie Law
3967. Mackenzie Rasile
3968. Madalena
Hernandez
3969. Madeleine Meyer
3970. Madeline Crabtree
3971. Madeline Liebreich
3972. Madeline Lucas
3973. Madison
Vickhammer
3974. Madison Wehnau
3975. Maegan Petersen
3976. Maegen Melendez
3977. Maera Zawacki
3978. Maggie Codding
3979. Mahdi Shishehgar
3980. Mahir Joudeh
3981. Mai Perkins
3982. Makeba Tsibu
3983. Makenzie Mann
3984. Malachi Mackie
3985. Malcolm Harkins
3986. Malisa Miller
3987. Manal Alsamain
3988. Manasseh Loft
3989. Mandy Boatman
3990. Mandy Jensen
3991. Mandy Lingerfelt
3992. Mandy Polini
3993. Mandy Robinson-
Thompson
3994. Manisela Prescott
3995. Manny Choi
3996. Manuel Noboa
3997. Manuel Urenda
3998. Marc Krenzke
3999. Marc Reszka
4000. Marcelino Davey
4001. Marcella Kimmick
4002. Marcelo Muto
4003. Marcie Asselstine
4004. Marcie Sparks
4005. Marcos Ramos
4006. Marcus Bjorklund
4007. Marcus Herron
4008. Marcus Jackson
4009. Marcus James
4010. Marcus Love
4011. Marcus Mitchell
4012. Marcus Morgan
4013. Marcus Spencer
4014. Marcy Sober
4015. Marendria Rashall
4016. Margaret Ball
4017. Margaret Blumish
4018. Margaret Cline
4019. Margaret Cooper
4020. Margaret Gonzalez
4021. Margaret Hensley
4022. Margaret Maxwell
4023. Margaret McGee
4024. Margaret Meier
4025. Margaret Smith
4026. Margaret Smith
4027. Margaret Walker
4028. Margarita Bailey
4029. Margarita Cingoz
4030. Margarita Martinez
4031. Margo Johnson
4032. Marguerite Fimbrez
4033. Mari Cartagenova
4034. Mari Goodridge
4035. Mari Putrow
4036. Mari Watson
4037. Maria Avdelas
4038. Maria Brizuela
4039. Maria Catledge
4040. Maria Ciaccia
4041. Maria Corleto
4042. Maria Fullam
4043. Maria Gaines
4044. Maria Greene
4045. Maria Jacobo
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 91 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4046. Maria Kennicott
4047. Maria Khangi
4048. Maria Martino
4049. Maria McInnis
4050. Maria Montez
4051. Maria Montoya
4052. Maria Morales
4053. Maria Nihells
4054. Maria Nunez
4055. Maria Occhiolini
4056. Maria Perez
4057. Maria Perkins
4058. Maria Rodriguez
4059. Maria Rodriguez
4060. Maria Rosaria Piroli
4061. Maria Roundtree
4062. Maria Salinas
4063. Maria Sosa
4064. Maria Theresa Perez
4065. Maria. Castro
4066. Mariah Haskew
4067. Mariah Landis
4068. Marian Fultz
4069. Marian Kloter
4070. Marian Welch
4071. Maribel Barrera
4072. Marida Nhim
4073. Marie Christian
4074. Marie Halligan
4075. Marie Hubbard
4076. Marie Johnson
4077. Marie Shishido
4078. Marie Stancovich
4079. Mariette Slater
4080. Marilyn Franzen
4081. Marilyn Roberts
4082. Marilyn Robinson
4083. Marina Carbonell
4084. Marina Hagstrom
4085. Marina Parker
4086. Mario Carthen
4087. Mario Flores
4088. Mario Moreno
4089. Mario Robinson
4090. Marion Chew
4091. Marisa Kyle
4137. Marta Jones
4138. Marteena Boykins
4139. Martha Hackethal
4140. Martha Haselton
4141. Martha Rodriguez
4142. Martha Scott
4143. Martin Buggy
4144. Martin Carroll
4145. Martin Harper
4146. Martin Hood
4147. Martin McKinney
4148. Martin Meshek
4149. Martin Mu
4150. Martina Sims
4151. Martineja Coats
4152. Marueen Love
4153. Marva Russell
4154. Marvin King
4155. Marvin Sibert
4156. Marvin Stockelman
4157. Mary Benak
4158. Mary Bishop
4159. Mary Carr
4160. Mary Cavanaugh
4161. Mary Cleveland
4162. Mary Cross
4163. Mary Dodge
4164. Mary Dunaway
4165. Mary Dunham
4166. Mary Ellen Nealy
4167. Mary Ellen Nealy
4168. Mary Fairbanks
4169. Mary Fuller
4170. Mary Gonzales
4171. Mary Hernandez
4172. Mary Jakubiak
4173. Mary Jenkins
4174. Mary Jess Ford
4175. Mary Jo Doering
4176. Mary Jo Schafer
4177. Mary Kiefer
4178. Mary Lane
4179. Mary Lee
4180. Mary Lordman
4181. Mary Luther
4182. Mary Martin
4092. Marisella Gonzalez
4093. Marisol Ortiz
4094. Marisol Scharon
4095. Marissa Mangold
4096. Marissa Olson
4097. Maritza Estrada
4098. Marium Hussain
4099. Marjean Gable
4100. Marjorie Agbey
4101. Mark Beutnagel
4102. Mark Carder
4103. Mark Cline
4104. Mark Copeland
4105. Mark Faustino
4106. Mark Ferrari
4107. Mark Laarveld
4108. Mark Moreno
4109. Mark Palmer
4110. Mark Pizzelanti
4111. Mark Rollins
4112. Mark Romero
4113. Mark Russo
4114. Mark Schotte
4115. Mark Seemann
4116. Mark Suarez
4117. Mark Thomas
4118. Mark Van Patten
4119. Mark Wade
4120. Mark Wade
4121. Mark Warsing
4122. Mark Wiseman
4123. Markeisha Anderson
4124. Markeita Reid
4125. Markyta Davis
4126. Marla Dodds
4127. Marla Turnbull
4128. Marlena Johnson
4129. Marliyah Zlatanovic
4130. Marlon Dickerson
4131. Marlon Reimers
4132. Marqueeta Collins
4133. Marrchelle
Tanzymore
4134. Marrissa McPherson
4135. Marsha Cole
4136. Marshall Martin
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 92 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4183. Mary McAdams
4184. Mary McLeroy
4185. Mary Nichols
4186. Mary Oconnor
4187. Mary Page
4188. Mary Pearce
4189. Mary Petty
4190. Mary Poole
4191. Mary Queen
4192. Mary Rogers
4193. Mary Sobon
4194. Mary Strong
4195. Mary Tomassian
4196. Mary Tyler
4197. Mary Vantil
4198. Mary Walker
4199. Mary Wells
4200. Mary Westfall
4201. Mary White
4202. Mary Winstead
4203. Maryann Sandoval
4204. Maryanne Zajac
4205. Marylou Taylor
4206. Mateusz Wysocki
4207. Matt Edgar
4208. Matthew Walenga
4209. Matthew Courcelle
4210. Matthew Esser
4211. Matthew Euson
4212. Matthew Gainey
4213. Matthew Gleason
4214. Matthew Hanson
4215. Matthew Huff
4216. Matthew Johnson
4217. Matthew Page
4218. Matthew Rosiere
4219. Matthew Seifman
4220. Matthew Villarreal
4221. Matthew Wilder
4222. Matthieu Soliz
4223. Mattie Boyden
4224. Mattie Johnson
4225. Maureen Carrigan
4226. Maureen Lynch
4227. Maureen Orr
4228. Maurice Calhoun
4229. Maurice Moore
4230. Max Ellithorpe
4231. Max Ketcham
4232. Maximiliano
Pacheco
4233. Maya Jones
4234. Maya Wright-
Levario
4235. Mayra Lara
4236. Md Ullah
4237. Meagan Henson
4238. Meaghan Omadigan
4239. Megan Ewert
4240. Megan Hutchins
4241. Megan Kelch
4242. Megan Sporleder
4243. Melanie Bilodeau
4244. Melanie Campbell
4245. Melanie Hernandez
4246. Melanie Lindsey
4247. Melanie Marlow
4248. Melanie McMillan
4249. Melanie Olsen
4250. Melinda Anderson
4251. Melinda Billingsley
4252. Melinda Bowman
4253. Melinda Plumb
4254. Melinda Sarver
4255. Melinda Schultz
4256. Melinda Tennant
4257. Melisa Juarez
4258. Melissa Basua
4259. Melissa Berrios
4260. Melissa Brown
4261. Melissa Campbell
4262. Melissa Clobridge
4263. Melissa Cross
4264. Melissa Dana
4265. Melissa Dean
4266. Melissa Dempsey
4267. Melissa
Dolchanczyk
4268. Melissa Dukes
4269. Melissa Eighmy
4270. Melissa Evans
4271. Melissa Garrett
4272. Melissa Garzon
4273. Melissa Guidry
4274. Melissa Hepp
4275. Melissa Judge
4276. Melissa Kirksey
4277. Melissa Labruyere
4278. Melissa Lectora
4279. Melissa Mann
4280. Melissa Merry
4281. Melissa Miller
4282. Melissa Neblock
4283. Melissa Nicholas
4284. Melissa Patrick
4285. Melissa Pinney
4286. Melissa Piraino
4287. Melissa Reza Lopez
4288. Melissa Russell
4289. Melissa Shaw
4290. Melissa Torres
4291. Melissa Vazquez
4292. Melissa Walton
4293. Melissa Wangsness
4294. Melissa Ward
4295. Melissa Wheeler
4296. Melisza Claeyssen
4297. Mellissa Ludeke
4298. Mellissia Giles Hunt
4299. Melody Elam
4300. Melody Nelson
4301. Melody Ross
4302. Meloney Masterson
4303. Melony Lamp
4304. Melvin James
4305. Melvin Lee Lorenz
4306. Memo Ching
4307. Mercedes Gonzalez
4308. Mercedes
Rogalewski
4309. Mercedez Sardin
4310. Meredith Sayre
4311. Merelene Deo
Chand
4312. Meric Gee
4313. Merri Hamilton
4314. Meshweida Carter
4315. Mia Guzman
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 93 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4316. Mia Makanda
4317. Mia Vasquez
4318. Mia Williams
4319. Micah Wojnowski
4320. Michael Abel
4321. Michael Anthony
Tatmon
4322. Michael Baldaccini
4323. Michael Bennett
4324. Michael Bolmer
4325. Michael Booker
4326. Michael Borger
4327. Michael Carpenter
4328. Michael Depaolis
4329. Michael Difronzo
4330. Michael Edwards
4331. Michael Ellis
4332. Michael Forsythe
4333. Michael Gerbas
4334. Michael Gibbons
4335. Michael Gliko IV
4336. Michael Gurr
4337. Michael Hand
4338. Michael Hartman
4339. Michael Hatch
4340. Michael Hoover
4341. Michael Howlett
4342. Michael Ikasalo
4343. Michael Jacobson
4344. Michael Justice
4345. Michael Kowalok
4346. Michael Kowalski
4347. Michael Laffoon
4348. Michael Lesure
4349. Michael Lombardi
4350. Michael Malloy
4351. Michael Martin
4352. Michael McBride
4353. Michael McCalmon
4354. Michael McCann Sr
4355. Michael McLean
4356. Michael Meredith
4357. Michael Methe
Parron
4358. Michael Morton
4359. Michael Moser
4405. Michelle
Bogomolny
4406. Michelle Candeau
4407. Michelle Canning
4408. Michelle Cevolo
4409. Michelle Coleman
4410. Michelle Curtis
4411. Michelle Daniels
4412. Michelle Devine
4413. Michelle Druitt
4414. Michelle Ferrier
4415. Michelle Gallagher
4416. Michelle Galloway
4417. Michelle Harried
4418. Michelle Hufford
4419. Michelle Huggins
4420. Michelle Ingrodi
4421. Michelle Jackson
4422. Michelle Kinsey
4423. Michelle Levels
4424. Michelle Lucas
4425. Michelle May
4426. Michelle
McCormick
4427. Michelle Middleton
4428. Michelle Odonnell
4429. Michelle Pervis
4430. Michelle Quatraro
4431. Michelle Ripley
4432. Michelle Robertson
Lovett
4433. Michelle Rodriguez
4434. Michelle Rogers
4435. Michelle Sanchez
4436. Michelle Thrasher
4437. Michelle
Washington
4438. Michelle Weikum
4439. Michelle Westbrook
4440. Michellele Shorter
4441. Mico Jackson
4442. Miesha Simpson
4443. Miguel Anguel
Cebreros Ramirez
4444. Miguel Campos
4445. Miguel Hernandez
4360. Michael Onley
4361. Michael Oreskovich
4362. Michael Pineles
4363. Michael Portalatin
4364. Michael Prizzi
4365. Michael Randall
4366. Michael Roberts
4367. Michael Robinson
4368. Michael Shivley
4369. Michael Siano
4370. Michael Stewart
4371. Michael Stewart
4372. Michael Surratt
4373. Michael Towner
4374. Michael Upton
4375. Michael Vaynshteyn
4376. Michael Voight
4377. Michael W Mattson
4378. Michael Walker
4379. Michael Warren
4380. Michael White
4381. Michael Womack
4382. Michael Wright
4383. Michael Wynn
4384. Michael Ziolkowski
4385. Micheal Ojeda
4386. Michele Bove
4387. Michele Deckert
4388. Michele Ellis
4389. Michele Fee
4390. Michele Foasberg
4391. Michele Galloway
4392. Michele Griffith
4393. Michele Kotlarsky
4394. Michele Langer
4395. Michele Laterzo
4396. Michele Maniscalco
4397. Michele Miranda
4398. Michele Montour
4399. Michele Tabor
4400. Michele Tucker
4401. Michelle Abbott
4402. Michelle Andrews
4403. Michelle Bailey
4404. Michelle Balyeat
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 94 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4446. Miguel Navarro
4447. Miguel Rico
4448. Mike Cimorelli
4449. Mike Crowley
4450. Mike Drake Drake
4451. Mike Rowland
4452. Mike Searcy
4453. Mildred Velez
4454. Miles Delaney
4455. Milton Greer
4456. Mindy Alexander
4457. Mindy Elliott
4458. Mindy McBride
4459. Minerva Reyna
4460. Miosoty Montanez
4461. Miquel Enoch
4462. Miracle Sanchez
4463. Miranda Fields
4464. Mireya Scott
4465. Miriam Colon
4466. Mirna Flores
4467. Missy Spellman
4468. Mistie Rhodes
4469. Misty Bivens
4470. Misty Brown
4471. Misty Goodwin
4472. Misty Hall
4473. Misty Johnson
4474. Misty Jones
4475. Misty Whitesides
4476. Mitrelle Daliet
4477. Mohamad Tlaib
4478. Mohamed Sobhy
4479. Mohammad Iman
Ghazizadeh
4480. Mona Reza
4481. Mona Sabeti
4482. Monecka Greaves
4483. Monet Wiggins
4484. Monica Davis
4485. Monica Dawkins
4486. Monica Doucet
4487. Monica Juarez
4488. Monica Leblanc
4489. Monica Prudhomme
4490. Monica Rivera
4491. Monica Romero
4492. Monica Santiago
4493. Monica Smith
4494. Monica Vogt
4495. Monika Green
4496. Moniqua Walker
4497. Monique Coaxum
4498. Monique Gutierrez
4499. Monique Holley
4500. Monique McCraney
4501. Monique Prater
4502. Monquilla Jefferson
4503. Monserrat
Hernandez
4504. Monte Costa
4505. Morgan Hogan
4506. Morgan Rimmele
4507. Morgan
Schermetzler
4508. Mort McElderry
4509. Mose Wilson
4510. Moses Rodriguez
4511. Mosima Namata
4512. Mounir Tammar
4513. Mryoshi Holden
4514. Msry Allen
4515. Muhammad
Bakhtiar
4516. Muhammad Zafar
4517. Munira Lakhani
4518. Musyce Stinson
4519. Mychael Carter
4520. Mykeyla Martin
4521. Myra Logan
4522. Myra Sosa
4523. Myron Lucasan
4524. Myrtle Dowell
4525. Naco Dye
4526. Nadine Brown
4527. Nadine Lipman
4528. Nadine Singleton
4529. Naeemah Brown
4530. Nahiely Moreno-
Sedano
4531. Naidean Jones
4532. Najmah Singleton
4533. Nakia Acoff
4534. Nakia King
4535. Nancie Hampton
4536. Nancy Caban Vargas
4537. Nancy Caley
4538. Nancy Cepaitis
4539. Nancy Espada
4540. Nancy Lamb
4541. Nancy Martinez
4542. Nancy Moreno
4543. Nancy Plante
4544. Naomi Elander
4545. Naomi Gomez
4546. Nastasha Searcy
4547. Nastassia Bowles
4548. Natalie Butner
4549. Natalie Carmona
4550. Natalie Fields
4551. Natalie Sage
4552. Natalie Scarbrough
4553. Natalie Wetherbee
4554. Natasha Boan
4555. Natasha Grey
4556. Natasha Krueger
4557. Natasha Parham
4558. Natasha Rucker
4559. Nate Davis
4560. Nathan Carroll
4561. Nathan Godwin
4562. Nathan Hernandez
4563. Nathan Marshall
4564. Nathan Steinbrunner
4565. Nathaniel Dove
4566. Nathaniel Earl
4567. Neal Esposito
4568. Neal Simpson
4569. Nearline Poston
4570. Neil Stephens
4571. Neil Valera
4572. Nell Tallos
4573. Nelson Castillo
4574. Nena Duran
4575. Neshaunda
Carodine-Gee
4576. Nestor Gonzales
4577. Netta Edwards
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 95 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4578. Nettie Warley
4579. Ni Hole Green
4580. Nicholas Grimsley
4581. Nicholas Hemric
4582. Nicholas Ionescu
4583. Nicholas Loschiavo
4584. Nicholas Posanti
4585. Nicholas Pritchard
4586. Nicholas Rundell
4587. Nicholas Sabaduquia
4588. Nichole Bjerga
4589. Nichole Hinchee
4590. Nichole Jordan
4591. Nichole Kurtz
4592. Nichole Ray
4593. Nick Jolly
4594. Nickie Obrien
4595. Nickko Walden
4596. Nickole Ward
4597. Nicky Westerlund
4598. Nico Benach
4599. Nicolas Jaramillo
Torres
4600. Nicolas Oliverius
4601. Nicole Burger
4602. Nicole Cole
4603. Nicole Cotter
4604. Nicole Demonte
4605. Nicole Drake
4606. Nicole Flagg
4607. Nicole Flick
4608. Nicole Jacobs
4609. Nicole Kelly
4610. Nicole Lamonica
4611. Nicole Leader
4612. Nicole Liddle
4613. Nicole Love
4614. Nicole Martin
4615. Nicole Miller
4616. Nicole Parker
4617. Nicole Pascale
4618. Nicole Pepper
4619. Nicole Pizza
4620. Nicole Pleasant
4621. Nicole Reed
4622. Nicole Thomas
4668. Octavia Fuqua
Blythe
4669. Octavio Chaves
4670. Olga Mills
4671. Olga Rodriguez
4672. Olga Sandoval
4673. Olivia Binger
4674. Olivia Frieden
4675. Olivia Hill
4676. Olivia Nash
4677. Olivia Spencer
4678. Omar Ballen
4679. Omar Westbrooks
4680. Ora Burnett
4681. Orinda Cary
4682. Orlando Garibay
4683. Orlando Prieto
4684. Orlando Young
4685. Orville Learned
4686. Oscar Garcia
4687. Oscar Romero
4688. Otiscia Harrison
4689. Pa Griffin
4690. Pablo Vazquez Jr
4691. Palmer Lawson
4692. Pam Meredith
4693. Pam Rivera
4694. Pamela Asmus
4695. Pamela Bean
4696. Pamela Bernard
4697. Pamela Corlis
4698. Pamela Cyrus
4699. Pamela Edwards
4700. Pamela Evans
4701. Pamela Hebert
4702. Pamela Henderson
4703. Pamela Hicks
4704. Pamela Howard
4705. Pamela Jackson
4706. Pamela McDowell
4707. Pamela Robinson
4708. Pamela Shannon
4709. Pamela Swies
4710. Pamela
Vorderstrasse
4711. Pamela Weathington
4623. Nicole Trevisan
4624. Nicole Vasquez
4625. Nicole Wilcox
4626. Nicole Woods
4627. Nicole Zillyett
4628. Nicshae Leverette
4629. Nideidra Anderson
4630. Niesha Lewis
4631. Niesha Paige
4632. Niki Smith
4633. Nikia Scott
4634. Nikki Adcock
4635. Nikki Ashburn
4636. Nikki Rogers
4637. Nikki Zyduck
4638. Nikkiah Hill
4639. Nikoloz Robakidze
4640. Nilsa Lopez Ramirez
4641. Nima Iupati
4642. Nina Guerrero
4643. Nina Lucas
4644. Nina McClain
4645. Nina Miller
4646. Nina O’Loughlin
4647. Ninah Jimenez
4648. Niramesha Phillips
4649. Nirmal Gajadhar
4650. Nisa Difoggio
4651. Noah Brown
4652. Noel Belpedio
4653. Noel Taylor
4654. Noelle Mobley
4655. Nolan Davis
4656. Nonnie Nolan
4657. Nora Griffin
4658. Nora Ruiz
4659. Nora Wallace
4660. Norma Ortiz
4661. Nortoya Evans
4662. Novia Brown
4663. Nykeshia Riddle
4664. Nykia Phillips
4665. Nyree Jackson
4666. Nyshea Lumpkin
4667. Nyssa Smith
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 96 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4712. Pamella Shumaker
4713. Pantrinca Wiley
4714. Pat Pearson
4715. Pat Stebritz
4716. Pat Worden
4717. Patience Innie
4718. Patra Freeman
4719. Patricia Alcantar
4720. Patricia Alrgria
4721. Patricia Alvarez
4722. Patricia Andros
4723. Patricia Arguello
4724. Patricia Baker
4725. Patricia Boren
4726. Patricia Brogan
4727. Patricia Brown
4728. Patricia Burns
4729. Patricia Cardenas
4730. Patricia Carpintieri
4731. Patricia Catalano
4732. Patricia Cavallaro
4733. Patricia Chapman
4734. Patricia Crockpot
4735. Patricia Dawson
4736. Patricia Donadio
4737. Patricia Dotson
4738. Patricia F White
4739. Patricia Ferraro
4740. Patricia Gaxiola
4741. Patricia Hammonds
4742. Patricia Heath
4743. Patricia Henline
4744. Patricia Hickam
4745. Patricia Hiltibidal
4746. Patricia Hutchinson
4747. Patricia Jackson
4748. Patricia Jones
4749. Patricia Jones
4750. Patricia Kendall
4751. Patricia Michel
4752. Patricia Mintz
4753. Patricia Powell
4754. Patricia Pryor
4755. Patricia Reynolds
4756. Patricia Schiesz
4757. Patricia Simpson
4758. Patricia Stokes
4759. Patricia Sullivan
4760. Patricia Taylor
4761. Patricia Terry
4762. Patricia Wood
4763. Patrick Chaffin
4764. Patrick Driver
4765. Patrick Edmund
4766. Patrick Glowacki
4767. Patrick Shoop
4768. Patsy Graham
4769. Patti Healy
4770. Patti Watson
4771. Patti Zackular
4772. Pattie Curtis
4773. Pattie Reed
4774. Patty Casey
4775. Patty Kramer
4776. Patty Ruff
4777. Paul Caspermeyer
4778. Paul Dodd
4779. Paul Jackson
4780. Paul Kim
4781. Paul Kneuer
4782. Paul Lewow
4783. Paul Maxwell
4784. Paul Mitri
4785. Paul Pollard
4786. Paul Reinhardt
4787. Paul Salos
4788. Paul Zikt
4789. Paula Atkinson
4790. Paula Borg
4791. Paula Clinton
4792. Paula Koble
4793. Paula
Moschogiannakis
4794. Paula Skopow
4795. Paula Sondrini
4796. Paulette Miles
4797. Pauline Leslie
4798. Pearlie Brownlow
4799. Pedro Urena
4800. Peggy Bentley
4801. Peggy Paynter
4802. Peggy Tarango
4803. Peggy West
4804. Peggy Wootten
4805. Penny Fox
4806. Penny Kline
4807. Penny Metheny
4808. Peorreya Philip
4809. Perfecto Lujan-
Fowlie
4810. Perry Santure
4811. Peter Dominguez
4812. Peter Isaacson
4813. Peter Matuch
4814. Peter Seroka
4815. Peter Wu
4816. Petrea Vanburen
4817. Phil Humbert
4818. Philip De Luca
4819. Philip Lingle
4820. Philip McClure
4821. Philip Neal
4822. Phillip Armenta
4823. Phillip Fields
4824. Phillip Lujan-Fowlie
4825. Phillip Taylor
4826. Phuoc Le
4827. Phuong Nguyen
4828. Phyllis Everette
4829. Piper Ryan
4830. Poleth Chico
4831. Porsha Cox
4832. Porshay Thompson
4833. Porticia Oliver
4834. Pouria Firouzi
4835. Pramod Bhimaneni
4836. Preness Graham
4837. Prentess Ridgeway
4838. Prentice
Spoonemore
4839. Prince Del Mar
4840. Princess Stanfield
4841. Priscilla Pealer
4842. Priscilla Shirer
4843. Priscilla Sullivan
4844. Priscilla Tripp
4845. Priscilla Walker
4846. Qiana Matthews
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 97 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4847. Quajhonita Martin
4848. Quaniche Gipson
4849. Quatasia Beckford
4850. Quina Myers
4851. Quintasha Parham
4852. Quintin Trout
4853. Race Melton
4854. Rachael Claunch
4855. Rachel Baldwin
4856. Rachel Baughman
4857. Rachel Doyle
4858. Rachel Galarsa
4859. Rachel Galvin
4860. Rachel Kent
4861. Rachel Olivares
4862. Rachel Powell
4863. Rachel Snodgrass
4864. Rachel Walther
4865. Rachelle Kern
4866. Rachelle Rand
4867. Rachelle Sapp
4868. Rachelle Wright
4869. Rachelle Yarbrough
4870. Racquel Wilson
4871. Radames Gonzalez
4872. Rae Ann Vawter
4873. Rah-Nita Boykin
4874. Raheim Smith
4875. Raime Gannon
4876. Raina Helming
4877. Rajat Dawar
4878. Rakyia Talley
4879. Ralph Cluck
4880. Ralph Cooper
4881. Ralph Palmer
4882. Ralph Schmidt
4883. Ramiro Rodriguez
4884. Ramon Santiago
4885. Ramona Gentry
4886. Ramona Woodruff
4887. Ranae Leonida
4888. Ranasha Harvey
4889. Randall Boles
4890. Randall Hughes
4891. Randall Kirby
4892. Randall Young
4938. Rebecca Dunn
4939. Rebecca Frazier
4940. Rebecca Furtado
4941. Rebecca Harden
4942. Rebecca Irby
4943. Rebecca Johnson
4944. Rebecca Knight
4945. Rebecca Koreyva
4946. Rebecca Lizotte
4947. Rebecca Meuse
4948. Rebecca Overy
4949. Rebecca Plumley
4950. Rebecca Rodgers
4951. Rebecca Saulsbury
4952. Rebecca Sklar
4953. Rebecca Wade
4954. Rebecca Watson
4955. Rebecca Williams
4956. Rebecka Bohannan
4957. Rebekah Fizer
4958. Rebekah John
4959. Reem Soliman
4960. Reenee Pierce
4961. Reggie Byrd
4962. Regina Allen
4963. Regina Burchfield
4964. Regina Cruz
4965. Regina Hampton
4966. Regina Larrie
4967. Regina Mathis
4968. Regina Portis
4969. Regina Rogers
4970. Regina Saunders
4971. Regina Smith
4972. Regina York
4973. Reginal Cobian
4974. Reginald Beasley
4975. Reginald Crain
4976. Reginald Holland
4977. Reginna Nelson
4978. Reiko Page
4979. Rena Hall
4980. Rena Taylor
4981. Renae Wilkerson
4982. Renalda Chambers
4983. Renda Cain
4893. Randi Holmes
4894. Randi Kohr
4895. Randi Wardwell
4896. Randolph Trujillo
4897. Randy Blackburn
4898. Randy Case
4899. Randy Haggins
4900. Randy Reel
4901. Randy Suydam
4902. Randy Taylor
4903. Randy Troxtell
4904. Randy Trumbo
4905. Ranee Decker
4906. Ranita Aing
4907. Raquel
Blossomgame
4908. Raquel Walton
4909. Rashida Smith
4910. Rashine Downs
4911. Raul Aguilar Jr
4912. Raul Rivera
4913. Raven Benford
4914. Raven Campbell
4915. Raven Easley
4916. Raven Holmes
4917. Raven Young
4918. Ravone Lindsey
4919. Ray Sims
4920. Rayette Hill
4921. Raymond Barnes
4922. Raymond Benson
4923. Raymond Cook
4924. Raymond Shepherd
4925. Raytchell Cosentino
4926. Reavis Blackmon
4927. Rebecca Anderson
4928. Rebecca Avalos
4929. Rebecca Banks
4930. Rebecca Burdick
4931. Rebecca Carter
4932. Rebecca Celaya
4933. Rebecca Chaplin
4934. Rebecca Cline
4935. Rebecca Combs
4936. Rebecca Concepcion
4937. Rebecca Crabtree
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 98 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

4984. Rene Edwards
4985. Rene Gotay
4986. Rene King
4987. Rene Ramos
4988. Renee Burnett
4989. Renee Campbell
Wynne
4990. Renee Christina
4991. Renee Kelly
4992. Renee Morales
4993. Renee Paine
4994. Renee Pollock
4995. Renee Silverio
4996. Renee Weber
4997. Renee Wong
4998. Reshawna Hines
4999. Reverend Sarah
Garner
5000. Reynaldo Borge
5001. Rhiannon Thackeray
5002. Rhonda Alexander
5003. Rhonda Anthony
5004. Rhonda Badgett
5005. Rhonda Bradford
5006. Rhonda Felix
5007. Rhonda Gossett
5008. Rhonda Hill
5009. Rhonda Hyman
5010. Rhonda Lechner
5011. Rhonda Sanchez
5012. Rhonda Sine
5013. Rhonda Thompson
5014. Rhonda Ward
5015. Ribin Barkdull
5016. Ricardo Caraballo
5017. Ricardo Machado
5018. Ricardo Rodriguez
5019. Rich Cafferkey
5020. Richard Alexander
5021. Richard Bennett
5022. Richard Centkowski
5023. Richard Cornwell
5024. Richard Eades
5025. Richard Ficeto
5026. Richard Fleener
5027. Richard Hall
5028. Richard Imbrie
5029. Richard Jones
5030. Richard Knauss
5031. Richard Long
5032. Richard Lyons
5033. Richard Marous
5034. Richard Martin
5035. Richard Martinelli
5036. Richard Neenan
5037. Richard Rizzo
5038. Richard Roberts
5039. Richard Ruiz
5040. Richard Sanders
5041. Richard Tana
5042. Richard Teman
5043. Richard Tersero
5044. Richard Tomlinson
5045. Richard Weaver
5046. Richard Witas
5047. Richard Wood
5048. Richelle Kellen
5049. Rick Cohen
5050. Rick Fletcher
5051. Rick Freyta
5052. Rick Lyon
5053. Rickey Wallace
5054. Rico Adams
5055. Rip Parsells
5056. Rita Amato
5057. Rita Anderson
5058. Rita Bardo
5059. Rita Floyd
5060. Rita James
5061. Rita Miller
5062. Rita Miller
5063. Rita Mueller
5064. Rita Santure
5065. Rita Streifel
5066. Rob Renouf
5067. Rob Smith
5068. Robb McCutcheon
5069. Robbie Lawson
5070. Robbie Osborn
5071. Robbie Wilburn
5072. Robby Bennett
5073. Robert Alverson
5074. Robert Bergey
5075. Robert Brooks
5076. Robert Burgess
5077. Robert Canipe
5078. Robert Carpenter
5079. Robert Colvin
5080. Robert Cummings Jr
5081. Robert De Trafford
5082. Robert Decarlo
5083. Robert Donahue
5084. Robert Donald Iii
5085. Robert Doucette
5086. Robert Endean
5087. Robert Gardner
5088. Robert Garrington
5089. Robert Grenadier
5090. Robert Harris
5091. Robert Harrison
5092. Robert Hensch
5093. Robert Herrera
5094. Robert Hutton
5095. Robert Kelley
5096. Robert Ledbetter
5097. Robert Love
5098. Robert Luty
5099. Robert M Forgues
5100. Robert Marsh
5101. Robert McGinnis
5102. Robert Miller
5103. Robert Nickerson
5104. Robert Parham
5105. Robert Perkins
5106. Robert Perry
5107. Robert Plaumann
5108. Robert R Velasquez
5109. Robert Reed
5110. Robert Rochin
5111. Robert Rozzen
5112. Robert Taylor
5113. Robert Terrell
5114. Robert Thomas
5115. Robert Vannier
5116. Robert Villanueva
5117. Robert Williams
5118. Robert Winters
5119. Robert Witkowski
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 99 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5120. Robert Yancy
5121. Robert Youdelman
5122. Roberta Burks
5123. Roberta Campbell
5124. Roberta Lydick
5125. Roberta Massard
5126. Roberta McKenney
5127. Roberto Abernethy
5128. Robie Kinsley
5129. Robin Berger
5130. Robin Campbell
5131. Robin Carter
5132. Robin Cushing
5133. Robin Davis
5134. Robin Dixon
5135. Robin Gargano
5136. Robin Gladieux-
Smith
5137. Robin Hunter
5138. Robin Ignico
5139. Robin Leflore
5140. Robin Majors
5141. Robin Mason
5142. Robin Patterson
5143. Robin Payton
5144. Robin Simmons
5145. Robyn Buder
5146. Robyn Cherry
5147. Robyn Christenson
5148. Robyn Hodge
5149. Robyn McKenna
5150. Rocco Koch
5151. Rochelle Juarez
5152. Rocio Cornero
5153. Rocio Soria
5154. Rocksand Woodard
5155. Rodney Forney
5156. Rodney Griffin
5157. Rodney Harrell
5158. Rodney Norman
5159. Rodney Wills
5160. Rodolfo Romero
5161. Roger Barisdale
5162. Roger Blunk Jr
5163. Roger Fonville
5164. Roger Kaiser
5209. Roshana Paxton
5210. Rosheshia Howard
5211. Rosie Clark
5212. Rosie Mellon
5213. Rosie Roscoe
5214. Rosie Walker
5215. Rosilyn Currie
5216. Rosilyn Thomashow
5217. Rosilyn Wilson
5218. Rosita McDaniel
5219. Ross Larosa
5220. Rossanne
Wankovsky
5221. Rovinski Renter
5222. Roxanne Gant
5223. Roxanne Manko
5224. Roxanne Thomas
5225. Roy Campbell
5226. Roy Ezekiel
5227. Roy Van
Broekhuizen
5228. Royshelle Edwards
5229. Rubi Gutierrez
5230. Ruby Cook
5231. Ruby Cruz-Quigley
5232. Ruby Jones
5233. Rudolph Janese
5234. Rudolph Winn
5235. Rufus Miles
5236. Ruqayya Husain
5237. Russell Collings
5238. Russell Rainey
5239. Russell Stephen
5240. Russell Wright
5241. Ruth Hamilton
5242. Ruth Noel
5243. Ruth Peters
5244. Ruthann Rustay
5245. Ryan Appel
5246. Ryan Boren
5247. Ryan Broyles
5248. Ryan Dominguez
5249. Ryan Levi
5250. Ryan Loch
5251. Ryan Murra
5252. Ryan Newberg
5165. Roger Long
5166. Roger Obecny
5167. Roger Putman
5168. Rolando Sori
5169. Rolena Upshaw
5170. Roleta Lassiter
5171. Romanita Salgado
5172. Ron Anderson
5173. Ron King
5174. Rona Brown
5175. Ronald Diuguid
5176. Ronald Gross
5177. Ronald Humphrey
5178. Ronald Kung
5179. Ronald Limon
5180. Ronald Palomeque
5181. Ronald Pederson
5182. Ronald Pilgreen
5183. Ronald Teramani
5184. Ronald Wilson
5185. Roni Sue Caimano
5186. Ronnie Brunson
5187. Ronnie Exum
5188. Ronnie McRae
5189. Ronnie Ramos
5190. Ronnie Wiggins
5191. Ronny Bay
5192. Roozbeh Hamed
5193. Rosa Camacho
5194. Rosa Gomez Acosta
5195. Rosalee Peterson
5196. Rosalia De Santiago
5197. Rosalie Patra
Ducharme
5198. Rosalind Tellez
Griffin
5199. Rosalinda Rogers
5200. Rosalyn McCune
5201. Rosanne Byers
5202. Rose Cleveland
5203. Rose Ezell
5204. Rose Jones
5205. Rose Morgan
5206. Roseanna Gonzalez
5207. Rosemarie Coleman
5208. Rosemarie Muro
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 100 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5253. Ryan Oloughlin
5254. Ryan Rivera
5255. Ryan Ruden
5256. Ryan Schavrien
5257. Ryan Schumacher
5258. Ryan Stowe
5259. Ryan Whittaker
5260. Ryden Duncan
5261. Rylander Williams
5262. Ryterion Fields
5263. Sabrena Briley
5264. Sabrina Aguilar
5265. Sabrina Carmichael
5266. Sabrina Davis
5267. Sabrina Gray
5268. Sabrina Kunkler
5269. Sabrina Luna
5270. Sabrina Parker
5271. Sabrina Reed
5272. Sabrina Scott
5273. Sabrina Scott
5274. Sabrina Taylor
5275. Sacchi Patel
5276. Sade Harris
5277. Sadie Adkins
5278. Sadie Anderson
5279. Sadie Dixon
5280. Sait Kurmangaliyev
5281. Sal Rivera
5282. Saleema Sisco
5283. Salina Hebert
5284. Sally Clark
5285. Salomey Calixte
5286. Salvador Dominguez
5287. Salvador Gonzalez
5288. Sam Day
5289. Sam Freeman
5290. Sam Smock
5291. Samantha Bowers
5292. Samantha Clark
5293. Samantha Conn
5294. Samantha Cox
5295. Samantha
Cunningham
5296. Samantha Dewberry
5297. Samantha Donley
5298. Samantha Dunton
5299. Samantha Foster
5300. Samantha Hairston
5301. Samantha Horton
5302. Samantha Le
5303. Samantha Linen
5304. Samantha Robles
5305. Samantha Sapp
5306. Samantha Sickmier
5307. Samantha Smith
5308. Samantha Vickrey
5309. Samantha Weber
5310. Samantha
Whitehead
5311. Samantha Yonts
5312. Samara Vankirk
5313. Samaria Lige
Roundtree
5314. Samika Parker
5315. Samira Williams
5316. Sammantha
Holsclaw
5317. Samuel Michaels
5318. Sandra Adams
5319. Sandra Avilez
5320. Sandra Bartley
5321. Sandra Bennett
5322. Sandra Benoit
5323. Sandra Boyd
5324. Sandra Butler
5325. Sandra Collins
5326. Sandra Domnitz
5327. Sandra Duplant
5328. Sandra Gammage
5329. Sandra Gill
5330. Sandra Guyton
5331. Sandra Harmon
5332. Sandra Havis
5333. Sandra Hawkins
5334. Sandra Hinkle
5335. Sandra Hodge
5336. Sandra Hundley
5337. Sandra Martinez
5338. Sandra McIntyre
5339. Sandra Oliver
5340. Sandra Reveal
5341. Sandra Richard
5342. Sandra Rodriguez
5343. Sandra Sackett
5344. Sandra Santiago
5345. Sandra Taylor
5346. Sandra Thompson
5347. Sandra Vargo
5348. Sandreano Green
5349. Sandria Nevils
5350. Sandy Kaltz
5351. Sandy Neumann
5352. Sandy Yeatts
5353. Sanita Scott
5354. Santiago Holder
5355. Santiago Salgado
5356. Sara Haney
5357. Sara McConnell
5358. Sara Murriel
5359. Sara Parker
5360. Sara Sapienza
5361. Sara Shaffer
5362. Sara Shumaker
5363. Sara Welch
5364. Sara Word
5365. Sara Worsham
5366. Sarah Barnes
5367. Sarah Bayer
5368. Sarah Bradley
5369. Sarah Bradley
5370. Sarah Hough
5371. Sarah Johnson
5372. Sarah Massingale
5373. Sarah Michels
5374. Sarah Milligan
5375. Sarah Morales
5376. Sarah Mosley
5377. Sarah Owens
5378. Sarah Pearl
5379. Sarah Pyle
5380. Sarah Radach
5381. Sarah See
5382. Sarah Sweenor
5383. Sarah Turvin
5384. Sarah Washington
5385. Sarahi Najera
5386. Sari Fitzgerald
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 101 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5387. Sarika Hossain
5388. Sasha Burroughs
5389. Sasha McHone
5390. Saundra Dixon
5391. Saundura Chance
5392. Savanna Canterbury
5393. Savanna Mumbower
5394. Savannah Lindsay
5395. Savannah Thorpe
5396. Savannah
Washington
5397. Scharna McCarty
5398. Scherrie Smith
5399. Schonlanda Bondd
5400. Schshawna Tyszko
5401. Scott Bowman
5402. Scott Bronson
5403. Scott Brown
5404. Scott Cassman
5405. Scott Duncan
5406. Scott French
5407. Scott Gray
5408. Scott Griffin
5409. Scott Mason
5410. Scott Scheuerman
5411. Scott Whalen
5412. Sean Church
5413. Sean Martin
5414. Sean Scheiffern
5415. Sean Serrano
5416. Sean Smigel
5417. Selah Monsef
5418. Selena Leslie
5419. Semaj Weaver
5420. Semone Lynch
5421. Sequoria Ray
5422. Serena Delagarza
5423. Serena Okigbo
5424. Serge Belozerov
5425. Sergio Martinez
5426. Servando Alvarez
5427. Setenia Coker
5428. Shaberia Amador
Crowder
5429. Shaeda Burgess
5430. Shahista Begum
5476. Shaquan Waddy
Griffin
5477. Shaquiesha Cubby
5478. Shaquillea Taylor
5479. Sharde Clark
5480. Shari Hogg
5481. Shari Wright
5482. Sharice Holt
5483. Sharifa Ali
5484. Sharil Mundy
5485. Sharise Reed
5486. Sharlene Brison
5487. Sharon Adams
5488. Sharon Baxter
5489. Sharon Bird
5490. Sharon Burns
5491. Sharon Daniels
5492. Sharon Daniels
5493. Sharon Davis
5494. Sharon Dexter
5495. Sharon Echols
5496. Sharon Frank
5497. Sharon Frierson
5498. Sharon Green
5499. Sharon Hanson
5500. Sharon Haynes
5501. Sharon Juliano
5502. Sharon Lasseter
5503. Sharon Manier
5504. Sharon Moore
5505. Sharon Pizarro
5506. Sharon Revels
5507. Sharon Robinson
5508. Sharon Slaughter
5509. Sharon Thompson
5510. Sharon Tigner
5511. Sharon Turner
5512. Sharon Wilson
5513. Sharon Wise
5514. Sharron Mack
5515. Shatara Brooks
5516. Shatera Keys
5517. Shaun Berry
5518. Shauna Eichelkraut
5519. Shauna Gibson
5520. Shauna Oconnery
5431. Shake Moskavian
5432. Shakeed Magee
5433. Shakita Tillman
5434. Shalamar Harper
5435. Shaleika Looney
5436. Shama Yamagata
5437. Shanda James
5438. Shanda Moore
5439. Shane Burton
5440. Shane Henkelman
5441. Shane Whorrall
5442. Shanee Hayes
5443. Shaneka Cantu
5444. Shanice Greer
5445. Shanikqa Adams
5446. Shanikqua Poole
5447. Shanise Walker
5448. Shanitra Johnson
5449. Shanna Taylor
5450. Shannah Causey
5451. Shannon Anderson
5452. Shannon Boyle
5453. Shannon Chaplin
5454. Shannon Cruz
5455. Shannon Greeno
5456. Shannon Jefferson
5457. Shannon Kowalok
5458. Shannon Leedy
5459. Shannon Manzo
5460. Shannon Moore
5461. Shannon Searles
5462. Shannon Shannon
5463. Shannon Simmons
5464. Shannon Thomas
5465. Shannon Warfield
5466. Shannon Williams
5467. Shannon York
5468. Shanta Gomez
5469. Shantavia McKenzie
5470. Shantek Adams
5471. Shantel Moore
5472. Shantel Staton
5473. Shantel Walker
5474. Shantell Barnes
5475. Shanthenia James
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 102 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5521. Shaunta Gorden
5522. Shavonna McNeil
5523. Shavonne Walker-
Ashley
5524. Shawanda Davis
5525. Shawanda Love
5526. Shawanda Sherman
5527. Shawanna McCoy
5528. Shawn Bates
5529. Shawn Butler
5530. Shawn Conley
5531. Shawn Delotch
5532. Shawn Digirolamo
5533. Shawn Doney
5534. Shawn Felton
5535. Shawn Ford
5536. Shawn Helo
5537. Shawn Miller
5538. Shawn Phillips
5539. Shawn Teeter
5540. Shawn Thompson
5541. Shawn Young
5542. Shawna Hendrix
5543. Shawna Spraggins
5544. Shawnelle Maxwell
5545. Shawntae Wiggins
5546. Bashaya
Montgomery green
5547. Shay Solamenté
5548. Shaya
Malekoshoarai
5549. Shayla Williams
5550. Shayna Cedeno
5551. Shayna Davis
5552. Shayna Ridings
5553. Shayne Pryde
5554. Sheila B Vazquez-
Orench
5555. Sheila Bechtel
5556. Sheila Darbonne
5557. Sheila Gresham
5558. Sheila Johnson
5559. Sheila Johnston
5560. Sheila Overbey
5561. Sheila Pinkerman
5562. Sheila Spencer
5563. Shela Yates
5564. Shelbie Falconer
5565. Shelby Baker
5566. Shelby Carter
5567. Shelby Cooper
5568. Shelby Parks
5569. Shelby Rozier
5570. Shelby Weaver
5571. Shelia Burks
5572. Shelia Welch
5573. Shelley Darrow
5574. Shelley Pennell
5575. Shelley Robinson
5576. Shelly Hogue
5577. Shelly Mansfield
5578. Shelly McFarland
5579. Shelly Trauernicht
5580. Shelly Watkins
5581. Shelly Wiggs
5582. Shemia Parker
5583. Shena Eubanks
5584. Shenika Anderson
5585. Shenita Bynum
5586. Sherelle Creasy
5587. Sheri Bake
5588. Sheri Roberts
5589. Sheri Shelton
5590. Sherise Richardson
5591. Sheronica Allen
5592. Sheronica Cooney
5593. Sherri Haasz
5594. Sherri Kidwell
5595. Sherrie Jones
5596. Sherrita Blackshear
5597. Sherry Bracy
5598. Sherry Dixon
5599. Sherry Lee-Spivey
5600. Sherry Lyons
5601. Sherry Mitchell
5602. Sherry Motes
5603. Sherry Pepper
5604. Sherry West
5605. Sherry Williams
5606. Sherry Williamson
5607. Sheryl Bounce
5608. Sheryl Brand
5609. Sheryl West
5610. Sheveta Thomas
5611. Sheza Admani
5612. Shianna Turner
5613. Shianne Davis
5614. Shianne Lee
5615. Shielia Whitehead
5616. Shirin Anderson
5617. Shirleen Nordahl
5618. Shirley Coleman
5619. Shirley Esparza
5620. Shirley Henderson
5621. Shirley Hoooper
5622. Shirley Hughes
5623. Shirley Johnson
5624. Shirley Koenig
5625. Shirley Moore
5626. Shirley Newton
5627. Shirley Plott
5628. Shiva Kilaari
5629. Shnigqua Owens
5630. Shontavious Yates
5631. Shontesia Beard
5632. Shoubic Rahman
5633. Shunette Goree
5634. Shyla Massey
5635. Shylo Wilson
5636. Shynell Richardson
5637. Sidney Martin
5638. Sierra Cade
5639. Sierra De Jan
5640. Sierra Dupreeshuler
5641. Silvia Huerta Perez
5642. Sintera Lewis
5643. Siobhan Brown
5644. Sirena Housley
5645. Sokino Vanstory
5646. Solomon Black
5647. Sonia Alcantara
5648. Sonia Arellano
5649. Sonia Cooper
5650. Sonia Cruz
5651. Sonia Hayes
5652. Sonia Segovia
5653. Sonja Bass
5654. Sonji Langford
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 103 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5655. Sonquea Dowdell
5656. Sonya Foster
5657. Sonya Garrison
5658. Sonya Orton
5659. Sonya R Thompson
5660. Sonya Scott
5661. Sonya Shaw
5662. Sonya Woods
5663. Sophia Allgood
5664. Sophia Little
5665. Sophia Murray
5666. Sophia Segura
5667. Sophia Sims
5668. Spencer Marbury
5669. Spencer Williams
5670. Spring Edwards
5671. Stacee Kirk
5672. Stacee Wheat
5673. Stacey A Ryan
5674. Stacey Bettis
5675. Stacey Conca-
Monfils
5676. Stacey Dyer
5677. Stacey Lee
5678. Stacey Malaret
5679. Stacey Morris
5680. Stacey Nelson
5681. Stacey Riggle
5682. Stacey Whaley
5683. Staci Autry
5684. Staci Tindle
5685. Stacie Atkins
5686. Stacie Beall
5687. Stacie Robbins
5688. Stacy Bennett
5689. Stacy Biggerstaff
5690. Stacy Frasure
5691. Stacy Harris
5692. Stacy Middendorf
5693. Stacy Smith
5694. Stacy Zinn
5695. Stafann Welch
5696. Stanley Rivers
5697. Staretha Hopkins
5698. Starla Kealey
5699. Starr Whitney
5742. Stephen Eubank
5743. Stephen Freeman
5744. Stephen Rumper
5745. Stephen Smith
5746. Steve Berrios
5747. Steve Homa
5748. Steve Johnson
5749. Steve Powers
5750. Steve Raiz
5751. Steve Schneberger
5752. Steve W Watson
5753. Steve Weber
5754. Steven Adams
5755. Steven Alvarez
5756. Steven Anderson
5757. Steven Angell
5758. Steven Beltran
5759. Steven Checchia
5760. Steven E Gousie
5761. Steven Edwards
5762. Steven Enriquez
5763. Steven Fitts
5764. Steven Hunt
5765. Steven McCollough
5766. Steven Mora
5767. Steven Morris
5768. Steven Mosley
5769. Steven Mulcahey
5770. Steven Rodriguez
5771. Steven Yentzer
5772. Stewart Sternberg
5773. Stewart Welter
5774. Stewart Younger
5775. Strassalyn Ayuba
5776. Strphanie Hood
5777. Stuart Chisholm
5778. Sue Anhalt
5779. Sue Arnett
5780. Sue Thomason
5781. Sue Williams-
Samuels
5782. Suen Rehman
5783. Sugei Ortega
5784. Sugey Guzman
5785. Suhalah Mohamed
5786. Sulai Smith
5700. Stefan Dudley
5701. Stefanie Blackwell
5702. Steffanie Schroeder
5703. Stella Oleforo
5704. Stepanie Robinson
5705. Stephanie Adams
5706. Stephanie Bauer
5707. Stephanie Brown
5708. Stephanie Brown
5709. Stephanie Conrad
5710. Stephanie Cruz
5711. Stephanie Cullens
5712. Stephanie Elekana
5713. Stephanie Foreman
5714. Stephanie Gordon
5715. Stephanie Harris
5716. Stephanie Heflin
5717. Stephanie
Henderson
5718. Stephanie Herrera
5719. Stephanie Jaggers
5720. Stephanie Johnson
5721. Stephanie Justice
5722. Stephanie Kass
5723. Stephanie Lattner
5724. Stephanie Lowe
5725. Stephanie Magat
5726. Stephanie Mayberry
5727. Stephanie Peacock
5728. Stephanie Peacock
5729. Stephanie Pinkerton
5730. Stephanie Polanco
5731. Stephanie Reardon
5732. Stephanie Reid
5733. Stephanie Renee
Thomas
5734. Stephanie Rush
5735. Stephanie Saldana
5736. Stephanie Schweigel
5737. Stephanie Smith
5738. Stephanie Snyder
5739. Stephanie
Washington
5740. Stephanie Waszak
5741. Stephanie
Youngblood
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 104 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5787. Sumiko Smith
5788. Susan Batcher
5789. Susan Bethke
5790. Susan Black
5791. Susan Costello
5792. Susan Delfiacco
5793. Susan Higgins
5794. Susan Hoffman-
Losinger
5795. Susan Holliday-
Mealer
5796. Susan Jacoby
5797. Susan Jenik
5798. Susan Linton
5799. Susan Matthews
5800. Susan Palmer
5801. Susan Shiner
5802. Susan Unger
5803. Susan Yochum
5804. Susana Simon
5805. Susannah Williams
5806. Susanne Thorne
5807. Susanne Wescott
5808. Susanne Whiting
5809. Susie Olaughlin
5810. Suzan Palmer
5811. Suzana Flores
5812. Suzane Brown
5813. Suzanna Brewer
5814. Suzannah Donaldson
5815. Suzanne Wilburn
5816. Suzetta Simpkins
5817. Suzi Washo
5818. Sybil Greenwood
5819. Sydney Gould
5820. Sydney Sayles
5821. Sydney Thorpen
5822. Sydney Vincent
5823. Sylver Madison
5824. Sylvester Pritchett
5825. Sylvia Corbisiero
5826. Sylvia Gibson
5827. Sylvia Mosley
5828. Sylvia Mower
5829. Sylvis Spence
5830. Syraya Walker
5831. Syrece Williams
5832. Syreeta Henderson
5833. Syreeta Hill
5834. Sytobia Hood
5835. Ta-Shira Miday
5836. Tabatha Aikens
5837. Tabatha Little
5838. Tabatha Rickelman
5839. Tabatha Sparks
5840. Tabatha Warner
5841. Tabbetha Cates
5842. Tabitha Jordan
5843. Tabitha Little
5844. Tabitha McClung
5845. Tabitha Rusterholz
5846. Tabitha Strohm
5847. Tae Lee
5848. Taffany Norman
5849. Tahnashati Gray
5850. Taisha Andrews
5851. Taisha Brown
5852. Taja Cabrea
5853. Taji Thomas
5854. Tajuana Spearman
5855. Takara Shaw
5856. Takia Malone
5857. Takisha Perryman
5858. Talleha Harley
5859. Talma Norriss
5860. Tamara Brown
5861. Tamara Ferguson
5862. Tamara Flournoy
5863. Tamara Horton
5864. Tamara Johnson
5865. Tamara Neumann
5866. Tamara Pettit
5867. Tamara Queen
5868. Tamara Setter
5869. Tamara Wyss
5870. Tameka Carrington
5871. Tameka Collins
5872. Tameka Finley
5873. Tameka Harrison
5874. Tami Nguyen
5875. Tami Roach
5876. Tamika Childs
5877. Tamika Cofield
5878. Tamika McClary
5879. Tamika Williams
5880. Tamira Boynes
5881. Tammie Sue Brooks
5882. Tammy Baughman
5883. Tammy Bays
5884. Tammy Benecke
5885. Tammy Bennett
5886. Tammy Dekorsi
5887. Tammy Hewitt
5888. Tammy Hicks
5889. Tammy Kinder
5890. Tammy Kratzer
5891. Tammy Lawson
5892. Tammy Padgett
5893. Tammy Parton
5894. Tammy Preuett
5895. Tammy Short
5896. Tammy Thain
5897. Tammy Walters
5898. Tammy Ward
5899. Tammy Williams
5900. Tammy Wyatt
5901. Tamorah Miller
5902. Tamra Wilinski
5903. Tana Scalese
5904. Tanaka Roberts
5905. Tanesha Florence
5906. Tanesha Johnson
5907. Tanesha Johnson
5908. Tanica Byrd
5909. Tanika Graham
5910. Tanisha Crawford
5911. Tanisha Jenkins
5912. Tanisha McKethan
5913. Taniya Allen
5914. Tanna Cornutt
5915. Tanya Bennett
5916. Tanya Brown
5917. Tanya Ford
5918. Tanya Mann
5919. Tanya Nelson
5920. Tanya Pettifer
5921. Tanya Terry
5922. Tanzonia Flakes
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 105 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

5923. Taquasia
Haynesworth
5924. Tara Adamek
5925. Tara Broadway
5926. Tara Campbell
5927. Tara Fudge
5928. Tara Koscielski
5929. Tara Maidment
5930. Tarance Jones
5931. Tarica Daniels
5932. Tarika Stewart
5933. Tarina Samms
5934. Tasha Allen
5935. Tasha McLain
5936. Tasha Nash
5937. Tashaleigh Ryerson
5938. Tasheena Evans
5939. Tashiela Longo
5940. Tasmi Imlak
5941. Tasmia Giles
5942. Tatevik Khachikyan
5943. Tatiana Brodiski
5944. Tatiana Harper
5945. Tatiana Hinton
5946. Tatiana Matkowskyj
5947. Tatiana Serrano
5948. Tatjana Sandles
5949. Tatum Campbell
5950. Taunya Smith
5951. Tauran Bowen
5952. Tawana McCants
5953. Tawana Perry
5954. Tawanda Davidson
5955. Tawanda Hainey
5956. Tawanda Paden
5957. Tayla Polia
5958. Taylor Barnerr
5959. Taylor Dixon
5960. Taylor Spencer
5961. Taylor Tippin
5962. Tayshia Weston
5963. Teala Madison
5964. Teandrea Foreman
5965. Ted Sparrow
5966. Ted Szczechowicz
5967. Teila Hopkins
5968. Temple Jones
5969. Tenicia Brooks
5970. Tenzin Wangmo
5971. Tequitria Houston
5972. Terasa Mata
5973. Teresa Ambrose
5974. Teresa Bowers
5975. Teresa Fajardo
5976. Teresa Foster
5977. Teresa G Clark
5978. Teresa Gamez
5979. Teresa Harris
5980. Teresa Kenney
5981. Teresa McEathron
5982. Teresa Miller
5983. Teresa Monk
5984. Teresa Northern
5985. Teresa Raatz
5986. Teresa Snow
5987. Teresa Tramble
5988. Teresa Vanklaveren
5989. Teretta Willis
5990. Teri Bothwell
5991. Teri Kimmons-
Struck
5992. Teri Scott
5993. Terlin Patrick
5994. Terrance Mack
5995. Terrance White
5996. Terre Matthews
5997. Terrence Bunch
5998. Terri Gamino
5999. Terri Gragert
6000. Terri Hanke
6001. Terri Jones
6002. Terri Kief
6003. Terri Lagrabd
6004. Terri Moloy
McComis
6005. Terri Rodgers
6006. Terri Wright-Leslie
6007. Terrica Perryman
6008. Terrie Johnson
6009. Terrie Jones
6010. Terrill Mendler
6011. Terry Baylor
6012. Terry Brown
6013. Terry Curl
6014. Terry Dodd
6015. Terry Kolwelter
6016. Terry Malone
6017. Terry Radford
6018. Terry Schrader
6019. Tesha Harrop
6020. Tessa Kenny
6021. Tessa Rowe
6022. Tessa Schroeder
6023. Tessana Nemenski
6024. Tessie Clifton-
Alexander
6025. Tevon Caul
6026. Thea Bartlett
6027. Theadocia Ginder
6028. Thelma Williams
6029. Theodora Smith
6030. Theodore Thorne
6031. Therene Hollisellis
6032. Theresa Ballak
6033. Theresa Burns
6034. Theresa Cavasos
6035. Theresa Clemon
6036. Theresa Devries
6037. Theresa Mcfadden
6038. Theresa Parker
6039. Theresa Shockley
6040. Theresa Thorne
6041. Theresaw Crim
6042. Theress Kinard
6043. Theron Gammons
6044. Thomas Bradley
6045. Thomas Evans
6046. Thomas Gilewicz
6047. Thomas Henderson
6048. Thomas Hickman
6049. Thomas Long
6050. Thomas Martin
6051. Thomas McManus
6052. Thomas Miller
6053. Thomas Robbins
6054. Thomas Roberts
6055. Thomas Russell
6056. Thomas Sannasardo
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 106 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

6057. Thomas Short
6058. Thomas Solis
6059. Thomas Yahnozha
6060. Thomas Zhou
6061. Thurman Brown
6062. Thurman Wells
6063. Tiara Alston
6064. Tiara Randle
6065. Tieonna Guerrier
6066. Tiera Davis
6067. Tiernan Corneille
6068. Tierra Crawley
6069. Tiffanh Kuehl
6070. Tiffany Banh
6071. Tiffany Barnes
6072. Tiffany Best
6073. Tiffany Brown
6074. Tiffany Burnside
6075. Tiffany Byrd
6076. Tiffany Coe
6077. Tiffany Danforth
6078. Tiffany Davis
6079. Tiffany Gonzalez
6080. Tiffany Haydon
6081. Tiffany Jinenez
6082. Tiffany Jones
6083. Tiffany McAdory
6084. Tiffany Moore
6085. Tiffany Neyens
6086. Tiffany Peay
6087. Tiffany Redd
6088. Tiffany Reed
6089. Tiffany Sanders
6090. Tiffany Tang
6091. Tiffany Tate
6092. Tiffany Watkins
6093. Tiffinie Barnhart
6094. Tighe Cooper
6095. Tikora Alexander
6096. Timothy Ellis
6097. Tim Hussong
6098. Timothy Jacko
6099. Timetra Smith
6100. Timolyn Tillman
6101. Timothy Bombolis
6102. Timothy Brown
6148. Todd Young
6149. Tolissa Reddick
6150. Tom Tran
6151. Tomeko Brue
6152. Tomi Johnson
6153. Tomica Coughlin
6154. Tommie Opell
6155. Tomoko Carter
6156. Toni Elkhouri
6157. Toni Honea
6158. Toni Morrow
6159. Toni Wright
6160. Tonia Tardy
6161. Tonia Williams
6162. Tony Baker
6163. Tony Barnett
6164. Tony Nguyen
6165. Tony Parmely
6166. Tony Snyder
6167. Tonya Rushing
6168. Tonya
Sanchesviesca
6169. Tonya Stephens
6170. Tonya Sykes
6171. Tonya Terry
6172. Tonya Whitman
6173. Toomi Chatikavanij
6174. Tori Hilderbrand
6175. Torrence Fuller
6176. Tosha Greenwood
6177. Toshi Bulford
6178. Toy Parker
6179. Toya Spearman
6180. Tracee Trone
6181. Tracey Andrewleski
6182. Tracey Conrad
6183. Tracey Linder
6184. Tracey Offett
6185. Tracey Pask
6186. Tracey Sims
6187. Tracey Thompson
6188. Tracey Wright
6189. Traci Lively
6190. Tracia Tucker
6191. Tracie Jemison
6192. Tracie Van Huffel
6103. Timothy Chimock
6104. Timothy Clary
6105. Timothy Emery
6106. Timothy Estis-
Wright
6107. Timothy Furrer
6108. Timothy Little
6109. Timothy Moore
6110. Timothy Reis
6111. Timothy Slater
6112. Timothy Stanley
6113. Timothy Sullivan
6114. Timothy White
6115. Timothyjay William
6116. Tina Boltinghouse
6117. Tina Crepeau
6118. Tina Dillard
6119. Tina Folse
6120. Tina Harvey
6121. Tina James
6122. Tina Keena
6123. Tina Kitchell
6124. Tina Lyde
6125. Tina Martin
6126. Tina Meissner
6127. Tina Moreno
6128. Tina Murry
6129. Tina Phillips
6130. Tina Pulley
6131. Tina Smith
6132. Tina Swilling
6133. Tina Trotter
6134. Tina Watson
6135. Tina White
6136. Tiphany Brucker
6137. Tischa Givens
6138. Tisha Bowden
6139. Tisha Kavanagh
6140. Tityana Clements
6141. Tj Gi
6142. Tj Robinson Jr
6143. Tkieyah Widemon
6144. Todd Angle
6145. Todd Armstrong
6146. Todd Phillips
6147. Todd Selburg
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 107 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

6193. Tracie Williams
6194. Tracy Adams
6195. Tracy Broderick
6196. Tracy Bryant
6197. Tracy Burgess
6198. Tracy Clayton
6199. Tracy Coffman
6200. Tracy Flaherty
6201. Tracy Hamby
6202. Tracy Holden
6203. Tracy Hyland
6204. Tracy Mix
6205. Tracy Nowlin
6206. Tracy Paschen
6207. Tracy Rogers
6208. Tracy Saunders
6209. Tracy Siek
6210. Tracy Smith
6211. Tracy Smith
6212. Tracy Tracy
6213. Tracy Wittmeyer
6214. Tranecia Magee
6215. Travis Conklin
6216. Travis Ilgenfritz
6217. Travis Ravens
6218. Travis Smith
6219. Travis Wilder
6220. Trei Felton
6221. Tremutria Goldwire
6222. Trena Belk
6223. Trent Brownfield
6224. Trent Taylor
6225. Trenton Marsolek
6226. Tresa Blume
6227. Trever Volkart
6228. Trevor Johnston
6229. Tricia Hammer
6230. Tricia Samu
6231. Trina Solomon
6232. Trish Abney
6233. Trisha Blair
6234. Trisha Horrisberger
6235. Trisha Napier
6236. Tristan Hayes
6237. Troy Benson
6238. Troy Davis
6284. Valerie Keller
6285. Valerie McCandless
6286. Valerie McElroy
6287. Valerie Okotie
6288. Valerie Rodriguez
6289. Valerie Thomas
6290. Valrie Sommerville
6291. Vanessa Anderson
6292. Vanessa Berry
6293. Vanessa Fundora
6294. Vanessa Giordano
6295. Vanessa Gusman
6296. Vanessa Mayers
6297. Vanessa Mrazik
6298. Vanessa Parlin
6299. Vanessa Rhyne
6300. Vanessa Ruiz
6301. Vanessa Scott
6302. Vanessa Shiels
6303. Vanessa Spulak
6304. Vanessa Tedrick
6305. Vanessa Thomas
6306. Vanessa Williams
6307. Vanyce Holmes
6308. Vashni Buchanan
6309. Vaughn Holloway
6310. Vaughn Logan
6311. Velma Wells
6312. Venesha Tindal
6313. Venessa Valentine
6314. Venice Miller
6315. Venise Barnes
6316. Venus Anderson
6317. Vera Morris
6318. Verlenia Mosley
6319. Vernita Crosby
6320. Vernon Pillar
6321. Vernon Woodard
6322. Veronica Brantley
6323. Veronica Marquez
6324. Veronica Russell
6325. Veronica
Schneekluth
6326. Veronica Snyder
6327. Veronica Walker
6328. Veronica Walker
6239. Troy Gawron
6240. Troy Haggadone
6241. Tselane Thomas
6242. Tsoi Cismaru
6243. Tuan Nguyen
6244. Turner Zahn
6245. Twana Williams
6246. Ty Johnson
6247. Ty Stricker
6248. Tyann
Rowlandjones
6249. Tyannia Black
6250. Tyaonna Vickers
6251. Tyarra Brown
6252. Tycia Jones
6253. Tyecha Brown
6254. Tyeesha Tibbs
6255. Tyessa White
6256. Tyler Bernard
6257. Tyler Smith
6258. Tylesha Spedden
6259. Tylicia Eason
6260. Tylisha Davis
6261. Tyneasha Reed
6262. Tynica Bell
6263. Tyoka Brumfield
6264. Tyra Rodgers Harper
6265. Tyreek Boyd
6266. Tysheka Wooden
6267. Tywanna Flowers
6268. Unique Little
6269. Urban Morales
6270. Uri Moscovici
6271. Uriah Gatewood
6272. Urieda Weathington
6273. Vakari Hutchinson
6274. Valarie M Thomas
6275. Valencia Hinds
6276. Valencia Lust
6277. Valentina Dumas
6278. Valentina Gilmore
6279. Valerie Allen
6280. Valerie Burton
6281. Valerie Dragon
6282. Valerie Gates
6283. Valerie Guess
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 108 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

6329. Veronica Williams
6330. Veronica Williams
6331. Veronique Lemanski
6332. Vicki Cornelius
6333. Vicki Derrickson
6334. Vicki Elder
6335. Vicki Farrell
6336. Vicki Hinkens
6337. Vicki Joplin
6338. Vicki Savage
6339. Vicki Sorensen
6340. Vicki Wittmeyer
6341. Vickie Cauthen
6342. Vickie Gartner
6343. Vickie Kuczera
6344. Vickie Phillips
6345. Vickki Savoygriffin
6346. Vicky Anway
6347. Vicky Arp
6348. Vicky Chow
6349. Vicky Elliott
6350. Vicky Gagliardi
6351. Vicky Silva
6352. Victor Castellon
6353. Victor Martinez
6354. Victor Montoya
6355. Victor Santacruz
6356. Victoria Brashear
McGing
6357. Victoria Ervin
6358. Victoria Hammond
6359. Victoria Harris
6360. Victoria Miles
6361. Victoria Needham
6362. Victoria Phillips
6363. Victoria Salas
6364. Victoria Turner
6365. Vida Anderson
6366. Vida Griffin
6367. Vikram Yamba
6368. Vincent Aceves
6369. Vincent Mundy
6370. Vincent Myers
6371. Vincent Smith
6372. Vincent Warchol
6373. Violeta Konjovic
6374. Virginia Barnhill
6375. Virginia Delong
6376. Virginia Grammer
6377. Virginia Jordan
6378. Virginia McMaham
6379. Virginia Peele
6380. Virginia Polk
6381. Virginia Stacy
6382. Virginia Thomas
6383. Virginiamae Lopez
6384. Vivian Davis
6385. Vivian Godby
6386. Vivian Lee
6387. Vivian Lysakowski
6388. Vladimir Amaraut
6389. Vladimir
Kuzmanovic
6390. Vonnie Jones
6391. Vraj Mantora
6392. Walahpawn Rios
6393. Waleed Haddad
6394. Wally Tamimi
6395. Walter Gayle
6396. Walter Harvey
6397. Walter Zeller
6398. Wanda Alexander
6399. Wanda Edwards
6400. Wanda Hegedus
6401. Wanda Mayer
6402. Wanda McCray
6403. Wanda Woods
6404. Warren Daniels
6405. Wayan Palmieri
6406. Wayne Klatt
6407. Wayne Murray
6408. Wayne Solomon
6409. Wayne Wientjes
6410. Wendy Andrews
6411. Wendy Freidly
6412. Wendy Gabbard
6413. Wendy Johnson
6414. Wendy Lewis
6415. Wendy McKenzie
6416. Wendy Reineck
6417. Wendy Russell
6418. Wendy Sanders
6419. Wendy Schlickeiser
6420. Wendy Simpson
6421. Wendy Smothers
6422. Wendy
Zemialkowski
6423. Wesley Williams Iii
6424. Whitney Campbell
6425. Whitney Casaine
6426. Whitney Drummond
6427. Whitney Henry
6428. Whitney Norcross
6429. Wildreyetta Black
6430. Wilfred Stamour
6431. Will Poston
6432. Willa Ivey
6433. William Altenreid
6434. William Bedford
6435. William Black
6436. William Boards
6437. William Bradford
6438. William Brown
6439. William Chavez
6440. William Crawford
6441. William Edmunds
6442. William Heaton
6443. William Heffner
6444. William Hoskins
6445. William Johns
6446. William Nelson
6447. William Perry
6448. William Pham
6449. William Rutzen
6450. William Spicher
6451. William Stallworth
6452. William Sumey
6453. William Taylor
6454. William Taylor III
6455. William Thomas
6456. Willie Gore
6457. Willie Green
6458. Williem Ladrae
6459. Wilma Whiitton
6460. Wilson Broughman
6461. Winderson Jesus
6462. Windy Heckathorne
6463. Winnie Isom
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 109 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>

6464. Winters Pork
6465. Wyatt Mayrand
6466. Wynona James
6467. Xaria Howard
6468. Xavia Minter
6469. Xavier Cordova
6470. Xochitl Guzman
6471. Yadira Finneran
6472. Yahya Mana
6473. Yana Burmich
6474. Yausko Gilchrist
6475. Yelena Ruvinskaya
6476. Yi Lin
6477. Yibril Salah
6478. Yolanda Hutchins
6479. Yolanda Moody
6480. Yolanda Moore
6481. Yolanda Pitre
6482. Yolanda Quintero
6483. Yolanda Rice
6484. Yolanda Ringgold
6485. Yolanda Tomlin
6486. Yolanda Weeks
6487. Yolanda Young
6488. Yolanda Zavala
6489. Yquesha Gibbs
6490. Yuritzi Ramirez
6491. Yvette Alcala
6492. Yvette Davis
6493. Yvette Mitchell
6494. Yvette Nielsen
6495. Yvette Whatley
6496. Yvonne Anderson
6497. Yvonne Baughman
6498. Yvonne Kempher
6499. Yvonne Lamendola
6500. Zach Ridd
6501. Zachariah Tesler
6502. Zachary Ewy
6503. Zachary Fleitz
6504. Zachary Green
6505. Zachary Perry
6506. Zachary Wolfe
6507. Zachery Hessel
6508. Zack Schoone
6509. Zaire Parmely
6510. Zakaria Chbani
6511. Zamaria Williams
6512. Zandria Brown
6513. Zattie Leggett
6514. Zavier Robinson
6515. Zeakia Covington
6516. Zeatavia Davis
6517. Zena Tanksley
6518. Zenaida David
6519. Zephan Carmody
6520. Zoie Webster
6521. Zorana Williams
6522. Zugey Ruiz
6523. Zury Barreto
Case 1:25-cv-01590-MKB-RML Document 24 Filed 03/09/26 Page 110 of 110 PageID
#: <pageID>