Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 1 of 196

Case No. 20-10249-RR Case No. 20-10609

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SHIYANG HUANG, et al., Objectors-Appellants,

v.

BRIAN SPECTOR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

EQUIFAX INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT

Opening Brief of Appellants David R. Watkins and Theodore H. Frank

HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE CENTER FOR FAIRNESS Theodore H. Frank Melissa A. Holyoak 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (703) 203-3848

Attorneys for Objector-Appellants Theodore H. Frank and David R. Watkins

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 2 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosures

Pursuant to Cir. R. 28-1(b) and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Theodore H.

Frank and David R. Watkins declare that they are individuals and, as such, neither Frank nor Watkins is a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation and there is no publicly held corporation that owns ten percent or more of any stock issued by Frank or Watkins. Pursuant to Cir. R. 28-1(b) and Cir. R. 26.1-2, the following trial judges, attorneys, persons, association of persons, firms, partnerships, and corporations are believed to have an interest in the outcome of this case or appeal:

1. Aaron, Mathew, Objecting Class Member 2. Abay, Jeremy E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3. Abbey Gardy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 4. Abbott Law Group, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 5. Abbott, Donna, Plaintiff 6. Abbott, Melissa, Plaintiff 7. Abdullah, Nafeesa, Objecting Class Member 8. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 9. Abraham, James, Plaintiff 10. Abraham, Jeffrey S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 11. Abramowitz, Paige, Plaintiff 12. Abramson, Ashley, Plaintiff 13. Acklin-Davis, Cheyra, Plaintiff 14. Acone, Angela, Objecting Class Member 15. Acosta, Russell, Plaintiff 16. Acosta-Smith, Katiushka Rebeca, Plaintiff

CIP-1

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 3 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

17. Adams, Andrew III, Counsel for Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 18. Adams, Christy, Plaintiff 19. Adams, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 20. Adams, Lee Objecting Class Member 21. Adams, Nicole, Objecting Class Member 22. Adams, Tina, Objecting Class Member 23. Aday, Danika, Plaintiff 24. Adcock, Sean Knute, Plaintiff 25. Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 26. Ademi, Shpetim, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 27. Adler, Elizabeth Dees, counsel for Defendant(s) 28. Agnew, Christopher, Plaintiff 29. Agosto, Jackie L., Plaintiff 30. Aguilar, Jaime, Objecting Class Member 31. Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 32. Ahdoot, Robert R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 33. Ahmed, Imran, Plaintiff 34. Ahmed, Priom, Objecting Class Member 35. Ahmed, Salar Ali, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 36. Ahmed, Salar Ali, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 37. Aidenbaum Schloff and Bloom, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 38. Air Line Pilots Association, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 39. Akeley, Lee, Objecting Class Member 40. Akin, Laronda, Objecting Class Member 41. Akkern, James, Objecting Class Member 42. Alam, Mohammed, Objecting Class Member 43. Albinda, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 44. Albrecht, David, Objecting Class Member 45. Albrecht, Lawrence G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 46. Alderman, Catherine, Plaintiff 47. Aldridge, Emily C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 48. Alexander, Dan, Plaintiff 49. Alexander, Eldridge, Objecting Class Member 50. Alexander, John, Plaintiff 51. Alexander, Richard, Plaintiff

CIP-2

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 4 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

52. Alford, Michael, Objecting Class Member 53. Alger Law LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 54. Alger, Melody A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 55. Ali, Akbar, Plaintiff 56. Ali, Poonam, Plaintiff 57. Ali, Reesa, former Plaintiff 58. Allabaugh, Jaclyn, Plaintiff 59. Allabaugh, Jason, Plaintiff 60. Allanoff, Ben, Plaintiff 61. Allen, Colleen, Objecting Class Member 62. Allen, Darnell, Objecting Class Member 63. Allen, Gregory Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 64. Allen, Jerry, Plaintiff 65. Allen, Kaitlyn, Objecting Class Member 66. Allen, Rosa, Objecting Class Member 67. Allen, Teresa Denise, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 68. Allison, Chris, Plaintiff 69. Allman, Stacy, Objecting Class Member 70. Allred, Loretta, Objecting Class Member 71. Almeida, Daniel E, Plaintiff 72. Almonrode, Sharon S. counsel for Plaintiff(s) 73. Alvarez, Kimberly Dawn, Plaintiff 74. Alvarez, Maria, Objecting Class Member 75. Amadick, Margaret, Plaintiff 76. Amador, Edwin Jeffrey, Plaintiff 77. Amador, Raymundo, Objecting Class Member 78. Amic, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 79. Amir J. Goldstein, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 80. Amjed, Naumon A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 81. Amon, Richard, Objecting Class Member 82. Amos, II, Charles Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 83. Ams, Jason T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 84. Amsden, John L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 85. Amuial, Adi, Plaintiff 86. Anderson, Christine, Plaintiff 87. Anderson, Jesse, Objecting Class Member

CIP-3

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 5 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

88. Anderson, Jill, Plaintiff 89. Anderson, Keneil, Plaintiff 90. Anderson, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 91. Anderson, Mary, Objecting Class Member 92. Anderson, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 93. Anderson, Patricia, Objecting Class Member 94. Anderson, Patrick, Plaintiff 95. Anderson, Rebekah Leann, Plaintiff 96. Anderson, Robert, Settlement Class Representative 97. Anderson, Roy, Objecting Class Member 98. Anderson, Tracey, Plaintiff 99. Andrea S. Hirsch, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 100. Andreica, Marius, Plaintiff 101. Andrews, Christopher, Objector 102. Andrews, James, Plaintiff 103. Andrews, Phyllis, Plaintiff 104. Andriotis, Sunilda, Objecting Class Member 105. Anecito, Scott, Objecting Class Member 106. Angelechio, Donald, Settlement Class Representative 107. Anglin, Clarence, Objecting Class Member 108. Anholt, Eric, Objecting Class Member 109. Annabelle Lee Patterson, PLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 110. Anthony, Donald, Plaintiff 111. Antrim, Shawna Michelle, Plaintiff 112. Apathy, Justin, Plaintiff 113. Apjok, Scott, Objecting Class Member 114. Appel, Dawn, Plaintiff 115. Archambault, Michele Renee, Plaintiff 116. Areta, Ronnell, Plaintiff 117. Arisohn, Joshua D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 118. Armstrong, Dean, Plaintiff 119. Armstrong, Dennis, Objecting Class Member 120. Armstrong, Michael, Objecting Class Member 121. Armstrong, Steven Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 122. Arnall Golden Gregory LLP-ATL, counsel for Defendant(s) 123. Arnell, Chelsea, Plaintiff

CIP-4

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 6 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

124. Arnold M. Johnson Law Offices, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 125. Arnwine, Brandon, Objecting Class Member 126. Arrants, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 127. Arreaza, Alex, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 128. Arslan, Engin, Objecting Class Member 129. Artino, Lynda L., Plaintiff 130. Artrip, Eric J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 131. Arwood, David Russell, Plaintiff 132. Ash, Avery, Plaintiff 133. Ashford, Lakunta, Plaintiff 134. Ashley, Mark, Plaintiff 135. Ashley, Wendy, Objecting Class Member 136. Asti, Gary, Plaintiff 137. Astor, Timothy, Plaintiff 138. Atiles, Jose, Plaintiff 139. Atkinson, Ashlie, Plaintiff 140. Atnip, III, Jack, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 141. Attig, David, Objecting Class Member 142. Aumais, Christopher T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 143. Austin, Bradley, counsel for Defendant(s) 144. Austin, Michelle E., Plaintiff 145. Avise, Grant, former Plaintiff 146. Ayala, Love Morales, Plaintiff 147. Aylor, Pamela, Objecting Class Member 148. Aylswotih, Jason, Objecting Class Member 149. Azocar, Adrian Michael, Plaintiff 150. Bacon, Adrian R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 151. Baggett, Jeannie, Plaintiff 152. Baggett, Patrick, Objecting Class Member 153. Bagnato, Ellen, Objecting Class Member 154. Bahnfleth, Doreen, Objecting Class Member 155. Bahnmaier, Mikayla Dawn, Plaintiff 156. Bailey & Galyen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 157. Bailey & Glasser LLP-MA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 158. Bailey, Benjamin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 159. Bailey, Elaine, Objecting Class Member

CIP-5

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 7 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

160. Bailey, John Kennedy, Plaintiff 161. Bain, David Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 162. Baize, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 163. Baker, Jason, Plaintiff 164. Baker, Jeff, Objecting Class Member 165. Bakken, Keri, Plaintiff 166. Bakko, Justin, Settlement Class Representative 167. Baldwin, Alan, Objecting Class Member 168. Ball, Jeannie, Plaintiff 169. Ballard, Stephanie, Objecting Class Member 170. Balser, David Lewis, counsel for Defendant(s) 171. Balzar John, Objecting Class Member 172. Bandoh-Aidoo, Samuel, Plaintiff 173. Banks, Gary, Objecting Class Member 174. Banks, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 175. Banlett, David, Objecting Class Member 176. Barber, Carol, Plaintiff 177. Barber, Eric, Plaintiff 178. Barbera, Sharon, Objecting Class Member 179. Barbier, Cliff, Defendant 180. Barker, Patrick, former Plaintiff 181. Barker, Rita Bolt, counsel for Defendant(s) 182. Barlieb, Ethan J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 183. Barnes, Angela, Objecting Class Member 184. Barnes, James, Objecting Class Member 185. Barnes, Joel, Objecting Class Member 186. Barnes Law Group, LLC, for Appellees 187. Barnes, Roy E. CFP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 188. Barnett, Mary, Objecting Class Member 189. Barnow & Associates, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 190. Barnow, Ben, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 191. Barone, John, Plaintiff 192. Barrack Rodos & Bacine, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 193. Barrett Law Group, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 194. Barrett, John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 195. Barrett, Sandra, Plaintiff

CIP-6

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 8 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

196. Barry, James A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 197. Barry, Mike, Claimant 198. Bartholomew-King, Julia, Objecting Class Member 199. Bartkowiak, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 200. Bartlett-May, Donna, Objecting Class Member 201. Bartlett-May, Richard, Objecting Class Member 202. Basconi, Pamela, Objecting Class Member 203. Basser, Stephen R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 204. Bassett, Alan B., Plaintiff 205. Bassett, Pamela R., Plaintiff 206. Baswell, Karen, Plaintiff 207. Bateman, Ricky, Objecting Class Member 208. Batten, David, Plaintiff 209. Battle & Winn, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 210. Battle, Fleenor, Green, Winn & Clemmer, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 211. Battle, Robert E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 212. Bauer, Fanah, Objecting Class Member 213. Bauer, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 214. Bauer, Michael, Objecting Class Member 215. Baumbach, Robert, Objecting Class Member 216. Baumbusch, Millie, Objecting Class Member 217. Baumgardner, Derek, Plaintiff 218. Bax, Nicolas, Objecting Class Member 219. Baxter & Baxter, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 220. Baxter, Justin M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 221. Baxter, Patricia, Plaintiff 222. Bayne, Dustin, Objecting Class Member 223. Beard, Leon, Plaintiff 224. Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles-AL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 225. Beauchamp, Jay, Objecting Class Member 226. Beauvais, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 227. Beavers, James, Objecting Class Member 228. Beck & Amsden, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 229. Beck, Monte D., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-7

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 9 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

230. Becker, Carolyn, Plaintiff 231. Beekman, Bernadette, former Plaintiff 232. Befort, Arlinda, Objecting Class Member 233. Beisel, Monica, Objecting Class Member 234. Beko, Sharon, Objecting Class Member 235. Belden, Matthew, Plaintiff 236. Belfon, Lawrence R., Plaintiff 237. Beligan, Jerusalem F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 238. Bell, Michael, Objecting Class Member 239. Bell, William, Objecting Class Member 240. Bell, Andrew P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 241. Belland, Jaclyn, Plaintiff 242. Bellin, Peter, Objecting Class Member 243. Belong, Tyler Jay, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 244. Belsky, Adam C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 245. Benavides, Olivia, Objecting Class Member 246. Benavidez, John, Plaintiff 247. Benavidez, Veronika, Plaintiff 248. Bench, Douglas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 249. Bendiksen, Lauren, Objecting Class Member 250. Bendiksen, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 251. Bendler, Marc, Objecting Class Member 252. Bene, Devin Xavier, Plaintiff 253. Bene, Kristina Ruidas, Plaintiff 254. Benedict, Sarah, Objecting Class Member 255. Benedick, Victoria, Objecting Class Member 256. Benevento, Megan A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 257. Benne, Adam J., Plaintiff 258. Bennett, Corey Benjamin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 259. Bennett, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 260. Bennett, Leonard A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 261. Benson, Jamie, Plaintiff 262. Benson, Robert Todd, Settlement Class Representative 263. Benson, Russ, Plaintiff 264. Benton, James, Objecting Class Member 265. Benvenutti, Jami, Objecting Class Member

CIP-8

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 10 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

266. Benway, Patricia M., Plaintiff 267. Benz, Douglas, Plaintiff 268. Berezofsky Law Group, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 269. Berezofsky, Esther Eva, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 270. Berg, Amy, Objecting Class Member 271. Berg, Jessie, Objecting Class Member 272. Berger & Montague, P.C. -MN, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 273. Berger & Montague, P.C. -P.A, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 274. Berger, David Michael, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 275. Bergquist, Karen, former Plaintiff 276. Berish, Joseph Michael, Plaintiff 277. Bermijo, Jane, Objecting Class Member 278. Bermijo, Paul, Objecting Class Member 279. Bernath, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 280. Bernstein, Anita, Objecting Class Member 281. Berry, Ken, Objecting Class Member 282. Bethea, Candice, Plaintiff 283. Bever, Mark, Objecting Class Member 284. Bevis, John Raymond, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 285. Beznoska, Bernice A., Plaintiff 286. Beznoska, Jr., Norman J., Plaintiff 287. Bhat, Vijay, Objecting Class Member 288. Bialecki, Valentine, Objecting Class Member 289. Bickerton Dang, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 290. Bickerton, James J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 291. Biedinger, Robert, Objecting Class Member 292. Biehl, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 293. Bielecki, David, Settlement Class Representative 294. Bierstein, Andrea, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 295. Bigler, Debra, Plaintiff 296. Bigler, Emil, Plaintiff 297. Biles, Wayne, Plaintiff 298. Bill, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 299. Binder, Brendan, Objecting Class Member 300. Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP - Lexington, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-9

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 11 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

301. Biorn, Ron, Plaintiff 302. Bireda, Saba, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 303. Birkett, Brenda, Plaintiff 304. Birkett, Brenda, Plaintiff 305. Biscup, Thomas Adam, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 306. Bishop, Lorna, Objecting Class Member 307. Bishop, Michael, Settlement Class Representative 308. Bishop, Paul W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 309. Bishop, Paul William, Plaintiff 310. Bishop, Roy, former Plaintiff 311. Bishop, Roy, Plaintiff 312. Bisnar Chase LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 313. Bitton, Avi Joshua, Plaintiff 314. Bjugan, Julie, Objecting Class Member 315. Black, James A., Plaintiff 316. Black, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 317. Black, Petre Fiona, Plaintiff 318. Blake, Daniel, Plaintiff 319. Blakeman, J. Benjamin, Plaintiff 320. Blakemore, Chevera, Plaintiff 321. Blanchfield, Jr., Garrett D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 322. Blankinship, Douglas Gregory, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 323. Blatt, Gayle M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 324. Blaudeau, Francois M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 325. Blauvelt, Christine L., Plaintiff 326. Bleckley, Jeanette Ann, Plaintiff 327. Bledsoe, Kathryn, Plaintiff 328. Bledsoe, Marilyn, Plaintiff 329. Bledsoe, Matthew, Plaintiff 330. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 331. Blieberg, Joseph Gershon, Plaintiff 332. Block, Carson, Plaintiff 333. Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 334. Blood, Timothy G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 335. Blumenthal, Aaron, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 336. Blythin, John D. counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-10

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 12 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

337. Boado, Alexi, Objecting Class Member 338. Bobb, Stuart, Objecting Class Member 339. Bobbitt, Kristine, Plaintiff 340. Bobko, Joseph, Objecting Class Member 341. Boden, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 342. Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP - Paducah, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 343. Boehm, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 344. Bogenrieder, Christine, Objecting Class Member 345. Boggan, Joel, Objecting Class Member 346. Bohne, Steven, Objecting Class Member 347. Bolen, Earl, Plaintiff 348. Boller, Brett, Objecting Class Member 349. Bologna, Sabina, Plaintiff 350. Bolton, Jordan S., counsel for Defendant(s) 351. Bonillas, Phillip, Objecting Class Member 352. Bonney, William, Objecting Class Member 353. Bony, David, Objecting Class Member 354. Boodhoo, Gaitri, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 355. Boone, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 356. Boothyby, Madelaine, Objecting Class Member 357. Boothe, John M., Plaintiff 358. Bordenkircher, Paul, Objecting Class Member 359. Borkoskie, Debra, Objecting Class Member 360. Borland, Tim, Plaintiff 361. Bornt, Rhonda, Objecting Class Member 362. Borrello, Robert John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 363. Bosak, Emily, Plaintiff 364. Bosak, Sean, Plaintiff 365. Bouchard, Dina, Objecting Class Member 366. Boundy, Samuel, Plaintiff 367. Bourne, Joseph C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 368. Boutin, Harold, Defendant 369. Boutin, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 370. Bowe, Sean, Objecting Class Member 371. Bowie, Carol, Objecting Class Member 372. Boyd, Daniel, Objecting Class Member

CIP-11

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 13 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

373. Boyd, Laurel, Objecting Class Member 374. Boyer-Rainwater, Rodney, Plaintiff 375. Bozin, Daniel, Plaintiff 376. Brachat, William L., Plaintiff 377. Bradford, Sharon, Objecting Class Member 378. Bradley, Alana M., Plaintiff 379. Bradley, Mary, Plaintiff 380. Bradley, Michael S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 381. Bradley, Sherri Vernetta, Plaintiff 382. Bradley, Valencia Vee, Plaintiff 383. Braid, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 384. Brainin, Gary, Objecting Class Member 385. Brammer, Jr., J. William, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 386. Branch, Amy, Objecting Class Member 387. Branch, Ebonie, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 388. Branch, Michael, Plaintiff 389. Brandon, Judy Diane, Plaintiff 390. Brannan, Emily Smith, Plaintiff 391. Brannan, Samuel Tillman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 392. Brannen, Jerad Russell, Plaintiff 393. Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 394. Brashier, Andrew E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 395. Brass, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 396. Bratslavsky, David, Objecting Class Member 397. Bratton, Barbara A., Plaintiff 398. Braun, Brendan, Objecting Class Member 399. Breen Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 400. Breen, David H., Plaintiff 401. Breen, David Hart, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 402. Breen, Mathew M., Plaintiff 403. Breen, Pamela A., Plaintiff 404. Brendon, Charles, Objecting Class Member 405. Brennan, Kenneth J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 406. Bressack, Darryl, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 407. Bretholz, Michael, Objecting Class Member 408. Brett H. Oppenheimer, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-12

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 14 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

409. Brian D. Flick, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 410. Bridges, James, Objecting Class Member 411. Brightwell, Anita, Objecting Class Member 412. Brinkerhoff, Susan, Objecting Class Member 413. Brisini, Jr., John L., former Plaintiff 414. Briskin, Alan M., counsel for Defendant(s) 415. Briskin, Cross & Sanford, LLC, counsel for Defendant(s) 416. Bristol, Jason Robert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 417. Britton, Emma, Objecting Class Member 418. Broadhead, Desirae, Plaintiff 419. Broder, Laura, Plaintiff 420. Brody, Jay I., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 421. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, ESQS., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 422. Bronstein, Peretz, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 423. Brooks, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 424. Broome, Christopher Justin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 425. Broome, Christopher Justin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 426. Brophy, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 427. Brough, Sandra, Objecting Class Member 428. Broughton, Deanne, Objecting Class Member 429. Brown, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 430. Brown, Chris, Plaintiff 431. Brown, Darlene, Plaintiff 432. Brown, David, Objecting Class Member 433. Brown, Diane, Plaintiff 434. Brown, Fred, Objecting Class Member 435. Brown, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 436. Brown, LaShawn, Plaintiff 437. Brown, Michael, Objecting Class Member 438. Brown, Ronald, Plaintiff 439. Browning, Nancy, Settlement Class Representative 440. Bruce, Paula, Objecting Class Member 441. Brumfield, Tyoka., Plaintiff 442. Brummel, Richard, Objecting Class Member 443. Brundage, Adam, Objecting Class Member 444. Bruno, George, Objecting Class Member

CIP-13

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 15 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

445. Brush, Frank J., Plaintiff 446. Brust, Charles, Objecting Class Member 447. Brust, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 448. Buchanan, David R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 449. Buche, Ronald, Objecting Class Member 450. Buckner & Miles, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 451. Buckner, David Marc, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 452. Buckton, Todd, Objecting Class Member 453. Budilov, Emil, Plaintiff 454. Budny, Kaitlyn, Objecting Class Member 455. Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 456. Buether, Eric W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 457. Buhler, Patricia, Plaintiff 458. Burchett, Amy M., Plaintiff 459. Burchette, Robert L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 460. Burgess Law Firm, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 461. Burgess, Mitchell L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 462. Burgstahler, Jody, Plaintiff 463. Burgstahler, Kevin, Plaintiff 464. Burke, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 465. Burns Charest, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 466. Burns, James, Objecting Class Member 467. Burns, Katrina, Objecting Class Member 468. Burns, Megan Elizabeth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 469. Burns, Warren T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 470. Burr, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 471. Burrows, Matthew Vernon, counsel for Defendant(s) 472. Bursor & Fisher, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 473. Burt Langley, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 474. Burt, Thomas H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 475. Butler, Crystal, Objecting Class Member 476. Butler, II, George Edwin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 477. Butler, Kathryn France, Plaintiff 478. Byas, Deidra, Plaintiff 479. Byrd, Courtenay, Plaintiff 480. Byrd, Evans, Plaintiff

CIP-14

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 16 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

481. Byrd, Gail, Plaintiff 482. Byrne Davis & Hicks, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 483. Cable, Sara, Counsel for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 484. Cacioppo, Jayna Morse, counsel for Defendant(s) 485. Cadwallader, Brian A., Plaintiff 486. Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 487. Calahan, Michael, Objecting Class Member 488. Calcut, Devin, Objecting Class Member 489. Calderon, Jose, Plaintiff 490. Caldwell, Jr., Robert Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 491. Callison Tighe and Robinson, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 492. Calvert, Sam, Objecting Class Member 493. Campbell, Francine, Settlement Class Representative 494. Campbell, Gary, Plaintiff 495. Campbell, Kody, Plaintiff 496. Campbell, Melissa Anne, counsel for Defendant(s) 497. Campbell, Robert Leonard, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 498. Campbell, Tammy L., Plaintiff 499. Campbell, Timothy F., counsel for Defendant(s) 500. Campolo, Eric Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 501. Campolo, Paul E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 502. Campos, Iris, Plaintiff 503. Canfield, Kenneth S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 504. Cantrell, Michael, Objecting Class Member 505. Caplan, David, Plaintiff 506. Cappio, Gretchen Freeman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 507. Capron, Lori, Objecting Class Member 508. Capron, Ronald, Objecting Class Member 509. Cardador, Joe, Objecting Class Member 510. Cardoze, Justin, Objecting Class Member 511. Cardwell, Robert, Objecting Class Member 512. Carey, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 513. Carithers, Elnest, Objecting Class Member 514. Carlberg, Paul, Objecting Class Member 515. Carlin, Nicholas A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-15

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 17 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

516. Carlson, Charles, Plaintiff 517. Carlson, Clara, Plaintiff 518. Carmer, Tami, Objecting Class Member 519. Carney, Benjamin Howard, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 520. Carney, Kristi, Objecting Class Member 521. Carney, Roxanne, Objecting Class Member 522. Carobene, Robert, Plaintiff 523. Carpenter, Becky, Objecting Class Member 524. Carpenter, Brian Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 525. Carpenter, Charles Henry, counsel for Defendant(s) 526. Carpenter, Dustin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 527. Carpenter, Dustin, Plaintiff 528. Carpenter, Dustin, Pro Se 529. Carr & Carr (Tulsa), counsel for Plaintiff(s) 530. Carr and Weatherby, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 531. Carr, Maria, Plaintiff 532. Carr, Mark, Settlement Class Representative 533. Carr, Natasha, Settlement Class Representative 534. Carr, Patrick Eugene, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 535. Carr, Pualette, Objecting Class Member 536. Carr, W. Pitts, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 537. Carrow, James, Objecting Class Member 538. Carson, Shanon J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 539. Carter, Shawnette, Plaintiff 540. Cary, III, Randolph Jefferson, Plaintiff 541. Casad, Mike, Objecting Class Member 542. Casamayor, Rebecca Newman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 543. Cascio, Raymond, Objecting Class Member 544. Case, Heather, Objecting Class Member 545. Casella, Jon, Objecting Class Member 546. Casey Gerry Reed & Schenk, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 547. Casey, Kathy, Objecting Class Member 548. Cashman, Michael Richard, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 549. Cashon, Ashley, former Plaintiff 550. Cashon, Ashley, Plaintiff 551. Cates, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member

CIP-16

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 18 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

552. Cavette, Carol, Objecting Class Member 553. Cawley, Molly Renee Hamilton, counsel for Defendant(s) 554. Cederdahl, James A., Plaintiff 555. Cejas, Miriam, Plaintiff 556. Cento Law, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 557. Cento, G. John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 558. Chabot, Douglas, Objecting Class Member 559. Chaffin, Christopher, Plaintiff 560. Chagnon, Armand, Objecting Class Member 561. Chaiken, David M., counsel for Defendant(s) 562. Chakan, Elizabeth, Plaintiff 563. Chalmers, Dawn Lea, Plaintiff 564. Chamberlain, Ruth, Objecting Class Member 565. Chambers, Alexia, Plaintiff 566. Chambers, Rachael, Objecting Class Member 567. Chandler, Arren, Objecting Class Member 568. Chandler, Michael, Objecting Class Member 569. Chandler, Susan, Plaintiff 570. Chaney, Katesha, Objecting Class Member 571. Chaney, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 572. Chang, Vivian, Objecting Class Member 573. Chap, Amanda, Plaintiff 574. Chapel, Jr., Nimrod T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 575. Chapin, Edward Dewey, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 576. Charest, Daniel H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 577. Charles T. Lester, Jr., Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 578. Chase, Brian D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 579. Chase, Michael, Settlement Class Representative 580. Chaselight, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 581. Chavez, Elizabeth Christine, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 582. Chavez, Kathleen Currie, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 583. Cheever, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 584. Chehebar, Solomon, Plaintiff 585. Chekmazov, Val, Plaintiff 586. Chen, Mimi, Objecting Class Member 587. Chenault, Jasmine, Plaintiff

CIP-17

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 19 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

588. Cheney, Jacqueline, Objecting Class Member 589. Cherepko, Michael, Objecting Class Member 590. Cherney, Andrew, Plaintiff 591. Cherney, Jack, Settlement Class Representative 592. Cherry, Patricia, Objecting Class Member 593. Cheskie, Peter, Objecting Class Member 594. Chidester, Anthony, Objecting Class Member 595. Chilivis, Cochran, Larkins & Bever, LLP, counsel for Defendant(s) 596. Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 597. Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 598. Chinander, Marie, Plaintiff 599. Chipp, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 600. Cho, Grace, Settlement Class Representative 601. Chochran, George, Objecting Class Member 602. Chon, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 603. Chrisman, Ethan, Plaintiff Chrisman, Tyler, Plaintiff 604. Christen, Peggy, Plaintiff 605. Christensen Young & Associates PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 606. Christensen, Cameron, Plaintiff 607. Christensen, Jennifer J., Plaintiff 608. Christensen, Steven A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) Christensen, Zane L., Plaintiff 609. Church, Megan Cunniff, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 610. Ciampitti, Alene, Plaintiff 611. Ciccaglione, Adele, Objecting Class Member 612. Cid, Yvette, Objecting Class Member 613. Cipollone, Pat, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 614. Cirsch, Lee A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 615. Clardy, William, Objecting Class Member 616. Clare, Christine, Objecting Class Member 617. Clarke, Bradon, Objecting Class Member 618. Clark Hill, PLC, counsel for Defendant(s) 619. Clark, Joseph, Plaintiff 620. Clark, LPN, Katherine, Plaintiff 621. Clark, Meghan, Plaintiff

CIP-18

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 20 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

622. Clark, Melinda, Objecting Class Member 623. Clark, Melissa Ryan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 624. Clark, Miles N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 625. Clark, Robin Frazer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 626. Clark, Thurman Bryan, Plaintiff 627. Clark, Walter, Objecting Class Member 628. Clate, Anthony, Plaintiff 629. Clay, Jr., Charles L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 630. Clayton, Laurence, Objecting Class Member 631. Clem, Tami, Objecting Class Member 632. Clemente, Ricardo, Settlement Class Representative 633. Clifford Law Offices, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 634. Clifford, Robert A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 635. Clifton, Latesha, Objecting Class Member 636. Clobes, Bryan L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 637. Clore, Robert, counsel for Objector 638. Clough, Michael C., Plaintiff 639. Clouser, Jamie P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 640. Coade-Wingate, Mona, Plaintiff 641. Coast Law Group, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 642. Cobb, Debra, Objecting Class Member 643. Cochran, Anthony L., counsel for Defendant(s) 644. Cochran, George W., Pro Se, Objector 645. Coe, Cherie, Objecting Class Member 646. Coe, Mathew Patterson, Plaintiff 647. Coffman, Richard L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 648. Coggins, Jeffery Scott, Plaintiff 649. Cohen & Malad, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 650. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 651. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC - DC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 652. Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 653. Cohen, David Michael, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 654. Cohen, Rosenthal & Kramer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 655. Colchin, Angela, Plaintiff 656. Cole, Matthew, Plaintiff 657. Cole, Philip, Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-19

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 21 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

658. Cole, Scott Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 659. Cole, Shirley M., Plaintiff 660. Coleman, Ed, Objecting Class Member 661. Colley & Colley LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 662. Colley Firm, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 663. Colley, Jr., Paul, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 664. Collier, Clarence, Objecting Class Member 665. Collier, Robert, Objecting Class Member 666. Collins, Charles, Objecting Class Member 667. Collins, Jill, Objecting Class Member 668. Collins, Randall, Plaintiff 669. Collins, Robert L, Plaintiff 670. Colson Hicks Eidson, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 671. Colville, Zalfen, Objecting Class Member 672. Colwell, Johnwayne, Objecting Class Member 673. Comery, Sean, Objecting Class Member 674. Comess, Keith, Objecting Class Member 675. Complex Law Group, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 676. Compton, Avery, Objecting Class Member 677. Compton, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 678. Conley Griggs Partin, LLP- GA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 679. Conlin, Roxanne Barton, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 680. Conn, Heather, Objecting Class Member 681. Connell, Justin Beecher, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 682. Conner, Margaret, Objecting Class Member 683. Connick Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 684. Connick, Thomas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 685. Conroy, Jayne, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 686. Consumer Justice Center, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) Consumer Law -PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 687. Consumer Litigation Associates, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 688. Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C.-NN VA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 689. Coogle, Thomas Leslie, Plaintiff 690. Cook, Jeffrey Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-20

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 22 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

691. Cook, Leslie, Objecting Class Member 692. Cooke, Adam, counsel for Defendant(s) 693. Cooke, Peter, Plaintiff 694. Coombs, Leo Michael, Plaintiff 695. Coombs, Leo Michael, Plaintiff 696. Coomes, Andrew Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 697. Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 698. Cooper, Corinne, Plaintiff 699. Cooper, Davis, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 700. Cooper, III, Paul Berry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 701. Copans, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 702. Cope, Breanne Vandemeer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 703. Copeland, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 704. Copeland, William Lloyd, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 705. Corboy & Demetrio, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 706. Cordell, Donald A., former Plaintiff 707. Corison, Bianca, Objecting Class Member 708. Cornett, Robert, Plaintiff 709. Corona, John, former Plaintiff 710. Corona, Yvette, Objecting Class Member 711. Corsale, Peter, counsel for Defendant(s) 712. Cortez, Alejandrina, Plaintiff 713. Cortez, Elizabeth, Plaintiff 714. Cortez, Joaquin Antonio, Plaintiff 715. Cortez, Yulissa, Plaintiff, Plaintiff 716. Costa, Yvonne, Objecting Class Member 717. Cotchett, Joseph W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 718. Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 719. Cottle, Robert W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 720. Couch Law, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 721. Couch, Nina B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 722. Coughlin, Joseph T., Plaintiff 723. Coulter, Crystal, Objecting Class Member 724. Cox, Brian, Plaintiff 725. Cox, Jessica, Plaintiff 726. Coyne, Mary, Plaintiff

CIP-21

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 23 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

727. Cox, Samuel, Objecting Class Member 728. Coxhead, Helen, Objecting Class Member 729. Coyne, Tonya M., Plaintiff 730. Crabtree, Beverly, Objecting Class Member 731. Craddock, Curtis, Objecting Class Member 732. Craig Kyle Hemphill Law Offices PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 733. Craney, Bridgettte, Settlement Class Representative 734. Craven, Michael, Objecting Class Member 735. Crawford, Kristen, Objecting Class Member 736. Craycraft, Philip, Objecting Class Member 737. Cress, Bryan, Objecting Class Member 738. Cresswell, Deborah Louise, Plaintiff 739. Criswell, Christian, Glenn, Objecting Class Member 740. Critelli, Glenn, Objecting Class Member 741. Crockett, Denise B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 742. Crockett, Jr., Robert F., Plaintiff 743. Crossett, James A., Plaintiff 744. Crotts, Sarah, Objecting Class Member 745. Crouch, Emily, Objecting Class Member 746. Crouch, Julianne, Objecting Class Member 747. Crow, Andrew, Plaintiff 748. Crowe, David, Plaintiff 749. Crowell, John, Objecting Class Member 750. Crowell, Thomas, Settlement Class Representative 751. Crumbley, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 752. Crumly, Tom, Plaintiff 753. Cseko, Joe, Objecting Class Member 754. Cuason, Maria Cristina, Plaintiff 755. Cuevas, Maricela, Plaintiff 756. Culver, Triel D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 757. Culwell, Mary, Objecting Class Member 758. Cunneen, Jeanna, Objecting Class Member 759. Cunniff, John L., Plaintiff 760. Cunningham, Rachel, Objecting Class Member 761. Curcio, Megan, Objecting Class Member 762. Curran, Jr., Gary R., Plaintiff

CIP-22

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 24 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

763. Curtis, Brian, Plaintiff 764. Cushin, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 765. Czapiewski, Randall, Objecting Class Member 766. Dahlstrom, Patrick V., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 767. Dake, Cory, Objecting Class Member 768. Daley, Steven, Objecting Class Member 769. Dalton, Brittany S., Plaintiff 770. Dalton, Daniel R., Plaintiff 771. Dambrosio, Anthony, Objecting Class Member 772. Damewoof, Michael, Objecting Class Member 773. Dana, Jacqueline, Objecting Class Member 774. D'Ancona, Joshua E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 775. Daniel E. Morris Law Firm, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 776. Daniel, James Nixon, Counsel for Fond du Lac Band of Superior Lake Superior Chippewa 777. Dann Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 778. Dann, Marc Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 779. Danny Sheena, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 780. Danzig, Aaron M., counsel for Defendant(s) 781. Dardick, Sarah, Objecting Class Member 782. Daughtery, Cady, Plaintiff, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 783. Davenport, Shannon, Objecting Class Member 784. David F. Miceli, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 785. David Hill Peck, Esq., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 786. David, Carl, Plaintiff 787. Davidson, Stuart A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 788. Davis, Alex C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 789. Davis, Alvin, Objecting Class Member 790. Davis, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 791. Davis, Denis, Objecting Class Member 792. Davis, Germany, Settlement Class Representative 793. Davis, Jeremy, Plaintiff 794. Davis, John William, Objector and Counsel for Objector 795. Davis, Karen, Objecting Class Member 796. Davis, Leonard A., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-23

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 25 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

797. Davis, Olivia, Plaintiff Davis, Patrick, Plaintiff 798. Davis, Ryan, Objecting Class Member 799. Davison, Laura J., Plaintiff 800. Davison, Terry, Plaintiff 801. Davitz, Dianna, Plaintiff 802. Dawe, Tricia, Objecting Class Member 803. Day, Elaine, Objecting Class Member 804. de Jesus, Peter, Plaintiff 805. De Ville, Tammy Tonette, Plaintiff 806. Deacon, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 807. Dean, Kevin R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 808. Dearborn, Mark J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 809. Dearman, Mark, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 810. Decker, Isabel Holguin, Plaintiff 811. DeConcini, Donna, Plaintiff 812. DeCosta, Christopher Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 813. Dees, Marshall P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 814. Defliese, Lenore, Objecting Class Member 815. Dejesus, Michael, Objecting Class Member 816. Dela Cruz, Monique, Plaintiff 817. Delapp, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 818. Delgado, Yesenia, Objecting Class Member 819. DeMarco, Jennifer Pascucci, Plaintiff 820. DeMarco, Jr., Daniel, Plaintiff 821. Demetrio, Thomas A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 822. Dennett, Stanley, Objecting Class Member 823. Dennis Corry Smith & Dixon, LLP- ATL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 824. Dennis, Jasmine, Plaintiff 825. Dennis, Kaitlyn Leeann, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 826. Depalma, Peter, Objecting Class Member 827. Derby, Melissa, Plaintiff 828. Derderian, Jaime Lea, Plaintiff 829. Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 830. Derook, Frances, Objecting Class Member 831. Derr, Charles, Plaintiff 832. Deschaux, Zachary, Objecting Class Member

CIP-24

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 26 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

833. Desiderato, Jerry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 834. Desmit, Erin, Objecting Class Member 835. Desmit, Forrest, Objecting Class Member 836. Devol, Steven, Objecting Class Member 837. DeVore, Linda, Plaintiff 838. Dewitt, Holly, Objecting Class Member 839. DeWoskin Law Firm, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 840. DeWoskin, Daniel Eliot, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 841. Dhuka, Imtiyaz, Plaintiff 842. Dhukka, Abuzar, Plaintiff 843. Diamand, Nicholas, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 844. Diamond, Douglas, former Plaintiff 845. Diaz, Ernesto, Plaintiff 846. Diaz, Johann Manuel, Plaintiff 847. Diaz, Pedro, Objecting Class Member 848. Dibble-Love, Kathlyn, Objecting Class Member 849. DiCello Levitt and Casey LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 850. DiCello Levitt Gutzler, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 851. DiCello, Mark A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 852. Dickey, Amy, Objecting Class Member 853. Digiovani, Mary, Objecting Class Member 854. Dilworth Paxson LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 855. DiMichele, John A., Plaintiff 856. Dimitrioski, Zlatko, Objecting Class Member 857. Dimmagio, Anthony, Plaintiff 858. Dingler, Jimmy, Objecting Class Member 859. Dirnbach, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 860. Dixon, Brittany, Plaintiff 861. Dixon, Clarence, Objecting Class Member 862. Dixon, Jeffrey Warren, former Plaintiff 863. Dobrowolski, Chris, Objecting Class Member 864. Dodick, Dan, Plaintiff 865. Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants 866. Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 867. Dolan, Michael, Objecting Class Member

CIP-25

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 27 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

868. Dolan, Susan, Objecting Class Member 869. Dolence, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 870. Dolence, Robert, Objecting Class Member 871. Dollhopf, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 872. Domaratz, Michael, Objecting Class Member 873. Dominguez, Oscar, Objecting Class Member 874. Dominick, Keith W, Plaintiff. 875. Domino, Barbara J., Plaintiff 876. Donaldson, Krista, Objecting Class Member 877. Donnelly, John, Plaintiff 878. Dooley, Robert S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 879. Doolittle, Dennis, Plaintiff 880. Door, Jacqueline, Objecting Class Member 881. Dorros Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 882. Dorros, Torin Aaron, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 883. Dorsey & Gates, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 884. Dorsey, Marilyn, Plaintiff 885. Dorsey, Trevor, Plaintiff 886. Dorssom, Elizabeth, former Plaintiff 887. Doss, Jason R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 888. Doten, Eileen, Plaintiff 889. Douglas, Austin, Objecting Class Member 890. Douglas, John, Objecting Class Member 891. Douglas, Kim, Objecting Class Member 892. Douglas Leonard & Garvey PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 893. Douglas, Phillip, Objecting Class Member 894. Douglas, III, Charles G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 895. Dover, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 896. Dowd, Tara, Objecting Class Member 897. Dowgin, Maura, Plaintiff 898. Downey, Jacob, Objecting Class Member 899. Downing, Chris, Objecting Class Member 900. Doyle, Nora, Objecting Class Member 901. Dozer, Kirk, Objecting Class Member 902. Drake, E. Michelle, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 903. Dremak, Andrew, Plaintiff

CIP-26

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 28 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

904. Drobny, Stephen Paul, counsel for Defendant(s) 905. Drugan, Christopher S., Plaintiff 906. Drummer, K'acia, Plaintiff 907. Dublin, Nancy, Plaintiff 908. Dudas, Mark A., Plaintiff 909. Duenas, Heather, Plaintiff 910. Duke, Christian, former Plaintiff 911. Dumoulin, Donald, Objecting Class Member 912. Dunaway, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 913. Duncan Law Group, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 914. Duncan, Debbie, Plaintiff 915. Duncan, Robert R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 916. Dundee, Caroline, Objecting Class Member 917. Dundee, Peter, Objecting Class Member 918. Dunlap, Joe J., Plaintiff 919. Dunlap, Leigh, former Plaintiff 920. Dunleavy, Christopher P., Settlement Class Representative 921. Duran, Franklin, Plaintiff 922. Duran, Roy, Plaintiff 923. Duran, Wendy, Plaintiff 924. Durham, Timothy, Plaintiff 925. Durling, Darlene, Objecting Class Member 926. Durrang, Joanne, Plaintiff 927. Dutton & Associates, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 928. Dye, Phillip, Objecting Class Member 929. Dykes, Keisha, Plaintiff 930. Eames, William M., Plaintiff 931. Earl, Jonathon, Plaintiff 932. Eastman, John, Plaintiff 933. Eaton, Rosalyn, Objecting Class Member 934. Eckerson, Janet, Objecting Class Member 935. Edelsberg, Scott Adam, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 936. Edelson & Associates, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 937. Edelson, Marc H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 938. Eden, William, Objecting Class Member 939. Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP -TX, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-27

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 29 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

940. Edmands, James, Objecting Class Member 941. Edward B. Geller, Esq., P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 942. Edwards Frickle & Culver, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 943. Edwards, A. Clifford, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 944. Edwards, Katherine, Plaintiff 945. Edwin, Atir, Plaintiff 946. Eggnatz, Joshua Harris, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 947. Eidson, Jr., Lewis S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 948. Eikost, Karl Gordon, Plaintiff 949. Eilbacher, Maryann, Objecting Class Member 950. Einstein, Eric, Objecting Class Member 951. Eisenach, Jared, Objecting Class Member 952. Eisenstein, Corinna, Objecting Class Member 953. Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 954. Eldridge, Mark A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 955. Ellenberg, Stanley, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 956. Elliott, Abby, Settlement Class Representative 957. Elliott, Maureen, Plaintiff 958. Elliot, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 959. Els, Brian, Plaintiff 960. Elston, Terry, Objecting Class Member 961. Emerson Firm, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 962. Emerson, John G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 963. Emert, Melissa Robin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 964. Emmons, Gloria, Objecting Class Member 965. End, James P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 966. Endicott, Laura, Objecting Class Member 967. Engel, Julie, Objecting Class Member 968. Engelsen, Candace, Objecting Class Member 969. England, Cynthia Jane, Plaintiff 970. Englert, Gina, Plaintiff 971. Engley-Moore, Evelyn, Objecting Class Member 972. English, Melissa L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 973. Enslow, Christopher, Plaintiff 974. Entsminger, Carrie L., former Plaintiff 975. Entsminger, Johnathan C., former Plaintiff

CIP-28

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 30 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

976. Eppy, Samuel, Plaintiff 977. Epstein, Zedd, Objecting Class Member 978. Equifax Consumer Services, LLC also known as Equifax Personal Solutions also known as PSOL, Defendant 979. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc., Defendant 980. Equifax Health Services, Defendant 981. Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant 982. Equifax Information Solutions, LLC, Defendant 983. Equifax, Inc., (EFX), Defendant 984. Erdman, Brett, Objecting Class Member 985. Erickson, Michael, Plaintiff 986. Ernst, Leslie, Objecting Class Member 987. Esades, Vincent J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 988. Escajeda, Hilary, Objecting Class Member 989. Eschrich, Kristin, Objecting Class Member 990. Esq, Janice, Objecting Class Member 991. Essary, Michelle, Plaintiff 992. Estes, Erin, Objecting Class Member 993. Etten, Robert, Settlement Class Representative 994. Evangelista Worley, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 995. Evangelista, James M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 996. Evans, Dawn, Plaintiff 997. Evans, Douglas C., Plaintiff 998. Evans, Janet, Plaintiff 999. Evans, Kay, Plaintiff 1000. Evans, Keymia, Plaintiff 1001. Evans, McKean J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1002. Eveland, Clark, Objecting Class Member 1003. Everly, Valerie Anita, Plaintiff 1004. Ewing, Jamie, Objecting Class Member 1005. Ex, Francine, Objecting Class Member 1006. Experian PLC (EXPGY), Service Provider 1007. Facinoli, Dr. John, Plaintiff 1008. Fail, Jonathan, Plaintiff 1009. Faillace, Ondrea, Plaintiff

CIP-29

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 31 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1010. Faircloth, Objecting Class Member 1011. Falco, Joe, Plaintiff 1012. Falco, Maria, Plaintiff 1013. Falcon, Richard V., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1014. Falcone, Kate, Objecting Class Member 1015. Falk, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 1016. Falkenberg, Paul, Plaintiff 1017. Faria, Brandee J.K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1018. Faria, Brandee J.K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1019. Farinella, Adolpho, Plaintiff 1020. Farinella, Gus Michael, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1021. Farley, Sarah, Objecting Class Member 1022. Farole, Michael, Objecting Class Member 1023. Farrell, Theresa, Objecting Class Member 1024. Farris-Olsen, Robert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1025. Farrow, Rik, Objecting Class Member 1026. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP -Atl, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1027. Faruqi, Rahul, Plaintiff 1028. Fausz, Ella J., Plaintiff 1029. Feeney, Patrick, Objecting Class Member 1030. Federman & Sherwood, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1031. Federman & Sherwood, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1032. Federman, William B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1033. Fee, Smith, Sharp & Vitullo, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1034. Feehrer, Wesley, Plaintiff 1035. Feied, Malcolm B., Plaintiff 1036. Feinstein Doyle, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1037. Felderman, Reed, Objecting Class Member 1038. Feldman, Lori G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1039. Feller, Robert, Objecting Class Member 1040. Felt, Greg, Objecting Class Member 1041. Ferguson, Michael, Objecting Class Member 1042. Ferland, Katrina, Objecting Class Member 1043. Fernandez, David, Objecting Class Member 1044. Ferrara, Susan, Plaintiff 1045. Ferrel, Kayla, Plaintiff- Settlement Class Representative

CIP-30

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 32 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1046. Ferrel, Janelle- Settlement Class Representative 1047. Ferri, Daniel R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1048. Ferri, Joseph, Objecting Class Member 1049. Ferri, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1050. Feury, Todd, Objecting Class Member 1051. Fidler, Zackory, Objecting Class Member 1052. Fields, Alison, Objecting Class Member 1053. Fillippelli, Roberto, Objecting Class Member 1054. Filseth, Paula, Objecting Class Member 1055. Finch, Courtney, Plaintiff 1056. Finch, Michael, Plaintiff 1057. Findlay, James, Plaintiff 1058. Fink + Associates Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1059. Fink, David H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1060. Fink, Nathan J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1061. Fink, Richard, Objecting Class Member 1062. Finkelstein Thompson, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1063. Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1064. Finley, James Benjamin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1065. Finnerty, Robert William, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1066. Firestone, Dylan, Objecting Class Member 1067. Fiore, Justin, Plaintiff 1068. First Albrecht & Blondis SC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1069. Fischer, John, Objecting Class Member 1070. Fischer, Steven, Objecting Class Member 1071. Fischman, Noam B., counsel for Defendant(s) 1072. Fish, Clarissa, Objecting Class Member 1073. Fisher, Barbra, Objecting Class Member 1074. Fisher, Connie, Objecting Class Member 1075. Fisher, Jr., David, Plaintiff 1076. Fitzgerald, Jack, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1077. Fitzgerald, Jack, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1078. Flanders, Kimbra, Plaintiff 1079. Fleischman, John, Objecting Class Member 1080. Fleischman, Mary, Objecting Class Member

CIP-31

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 33 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1081. Fletcher, Chris, Objecting Class Member 1082. Fleming Law Firm, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1083. Fleming, Catherine J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1084. Flick, Brian D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1085. Flinchbaugh, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 1086. Flitton, Cheminant M., Plaintiff 1087. Flood, Kelly, Plaintiff 1088. Flores, Shervon, Plaintiff 1089. Florio-August, Alyssa, Objecting Class Member 1090. Flowers, Alice-Marie, Appellant 1091. Flowers, Jodi Westbrook, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1092. Floyd, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1093. Flynn, Trevor, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1094. Fong, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 1095. Fontana, Domenic, Objecting Class Member 1096. Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1097. Foote, Robert M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1098. Foraker, Jane, Objecting Class Member 1099. Ford, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1100. Ford, Terry, Plaintiff 1101. Fore, Lindsay Elisabeth, Plaintiff 1102. Forsyth, John, Objecting Class Member 1103. Fossett, Tiffany, Plaintiff 1104. Foster, James- Objecting Class Member 1105. Foster, Jason P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1106. Foster, Sallie, Objecting Class Member 1107. Foster, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 1108. Foutch, Pam, Objecting Class Member 1109. Fowler, Gloria, Objecting Class Member 1110. Fox, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 1111. Fox, William, Objecting Class Member 1112. Fragala, Mike, Objecting Class Member 1113. Fraietta, Philip L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1114. Fralick, John, Plaintiff 1115. Francis, Lori, Objecting Class Member 1116. Francis, Rob, Objecting Class Member

CIP-32

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 34 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1117. Francis & Mailman, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1118. Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1119. Francis, James A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1120. Francofra, Alessandraale, Objecting Class Member 1121. Frank, Edward, Objecting Class Member 1122. Frank, Larry, Plaintiff 1123. Frank, Patrick, Objecting Class Member 1124. Frank, Patricia, Plaintiff 1125. Frank, Theodore, Objecting Class Member 1126. Frank, Theodore H., Counsel for Objectors Watkins and Frank 1127. Franken, Barbra, Objecting Class Member 1128. Franken, Govardus, Objecting Class Member 1129. Franklin, Alexander, Objecting Class Member 1130. Franklin, Karen, Plaintiff 1131. Franklin, Michael, Plaintiff 1132. Frazier, Tawanda, Plaintiff 1133. Frazier, Tracy, Objecting Class Member 1134. Fredrickson, Esther, Objecting Class Member 1135. Freeman, Randi, Plaintiff 1136. Freeman-Hargis, James, former Plaintiff 1137. Freeman, Sallie, Objecting Class Member 1138. Freeman, Varel, Objecting Class Member 1139. Frei-Pearson, Jeremiah Lee, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1140. Fresh, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 1141. Fried, Albert Louis, Plaintiff 1142. Friedland, Shelly L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1143. Friedman, Andrea, Plaintiff 1144. Friedman, Andrew N. counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1145. Friedman, Todd M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1146. Friedrich, Robert, Defendant 1147. Friend, Brenda, Objecting Class Member 1148. Fritschi, Susan, Objecting Class Member 1149. Froelich, Jr., Jerome, counsel for Objector Mikell West 1150. Fryberger, Grace, Objecting Class Member 1151. Fugate, Angel, Objecting Class Member 1152. Fuhrman, Todd, Plaintiff

CIP-33

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 35 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1153. Fulbright, David, Objecting Class Member 1154. Fuller, Michael R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1155. Fulmore, Booker, Objecting Class Member 1156. Fulton, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 1157. Furry, Lester, Objecting Class Member 1158. Fuschetti, Danielle Anne 1159. Gaffney, Lilia, Objecting Class Member 1160. Gagne,Thomas, Objecting Class Member 1161. Gainey, Richard, former Plaintiff 1162. Gainey, Valerie, former Plaintiff 1163. Galiza-Whitehead, Rose, Objecting Class Member 1164. Gallagher Callahan & Gartrell PC, counsel for Defendant(s) 1165. Gallant, Jr., Joseph, Plaintiff 1166. Galligan & Reid PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1167. Galligan, Brian P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1168. Gallo, Violet, Plaintiff 1169. Galloway, Kristen, Plaintiff 1170. Gallucci, Daniel N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1171. Galpem, Andre, Settlement Class Representative 1172. Galpern, Andrew, Plaintiff 1173. Galpern, Michael A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1174. Galpin, Theresa M., Plaintiff 1175. Gambaro, Jill, Objecting Class Member 1176. Gardner, Anthony, Objecting Class Member 1177. Gardner, Frederick, Plaintiff 1178. Gardner, Shanna, Objecting Class Member 1179. Gardner, Nikki-Lynn, Plaintiff 1180. Gardy and Notis, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1181. Gardy, Mark C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1182. Garey, Deanna, Objecting Class Member 1183. Garrant, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 1184. Garren, Jordan, Objecting Class Member 1185. Garrett, Robert Walker, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1186. Garrison, Jr., W. Lewis, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1187. Garrity, James M., Plaintiff 1188. Garthright, Blair, Plaintiff

CIP-34

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 36 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1189. Garvine, Brian M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1190. Gaskins, Joy, Objecting Class Member 1191. Gastel, Benjamin A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1192. Gastineau, Charles, Plaintiff 1193. Gates, Matthew, Plaintiff 1194. Gates, Sergeant James, Plaintiff 1195. Gates, Tanisha M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1196. Gauger, Andrew, Plaintiff 1197. Gauger, Nancy, former Plaintiff 1198. Gavlin, Christine, Objecting Class Member 1199. Gay, James, Settlement Class Representative 1200. Gay, James A., Plaintiff 1201. Gearlds, Eagle, Objecting Class Member 1202. Gedacht, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 1203. Geist, Johannes, Objecting Class Member 1204. Gellar, Paul J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1205. Geller, Andrew C., Plaintiff 1206. Geller, Edward B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1207. Geller, Jody L., Plaintiff 1208. Genardo, Nick, Objecting Class Member 1209. Genovese, Kelly, Objecting Class Member 1210. Gentile, Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1211. Gentile, Ryan L, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1212. Geragos & Geragos, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1213. Geragos, Mark J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1214. Gerstein, Joshua, Plaintiff 1215. Gersten, Ehud, Plaintiff 1216. Getz, Michael, Settlement Class Representative 1217. Giaimo, David, Objecting Class Member 1218. Gianola, Barnum & Wigal, LC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1219. Gianola, James A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1220. Gianola, John Fulton, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1221. Giatras, Troy N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1222. Gibbeny, Shelley, Objecting Class Member 1223. Gibbs Law Group LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1224. Gibbs, Eric H., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-35

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 37 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1225. Gibbs, Robert, Plaintiff 1226. Gibbs, William T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1227. Giblin, Gwendolyn R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1228. Gibson, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1229. Gibson, Robin, Plaintiff 1230. Gibson, Troy K., Plaintiff 1231. Giesler, Shea, Defendant 1232. Gifford, Shenna, Plaintiff 1233. Gilbert, Alicia Bliss, counsel for Defendant(s) 1234. Gilbert, Cindy, Objecting Class Member 1235. Gilbert, Robert Cecil, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1236. Gilchrist, Corinne, Counsel for the State of Indiana as 1237. Gilchrist, Wesley B., counsel for Defendant(s) 1238. Giles, Lewis, Objecting Class Member 1239. Gillman, Joanna, Objecting Class Member 1240. Gillin, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 1241. Gilmore, Robert B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1242. Ginn, Marie, Objecting Class Member 1243. Ginzberg, Steven, Objecting Class Member 1244. Girard Gibbs, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1245. Girardi & Keese, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1246. Given, David M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1247. Gladwell, Lisa, Plaintiff 1248. Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP -CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1249. Glancy, Lionel Z., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1250. Glassman, Marisa Kendra, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1251. Glazier, Frederick, Objecting Class Member 1252. Glover, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1253. Glover, William, Objecting Class Member 1254. Gockley, Lovella, Objecting Class Member 1255. Godfrey & Kahn-WI, counsel for Defendant(s) 1256. Godino, Marc L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1257. Goebel, James, Objecting Class Member 1258. Goel, Karan, Objecting Class Member 1259. Goering, David, Objecting Class Member

CIP-36

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 38 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1260. Gokey, Lynda, Objecting Class Member 1261. Goldberg, Todd, Objecting Class Member 1262. Golden, Kara, Objecting Class Member 1263. Goldenberg Schneider LPA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1264. Goldenberg, Jeffrey, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1265. Goldfine, Evan, Objecting Class Member 1266. Goldman Scarlato & Penny, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1267. Goldman, Mark S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1268. Goldstein, Amir J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1269. Goldstein, Jennifer S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1270. Goldweber, Asha, Plaintiff 1271. Golnik, Gray, Objecting Class Member 1272. Gomez LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1273. Gomez, Julio C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1274. Gonzales, Savanna, Objecting Class Member 1275. Gonzales, Savannah, Objecting Class Member 1276. Gonzalez, Rosemary, Plaintiff 1277. Goodale, Zachary, Plaintiff 1278. Goode, Laura J., Plaintiff 1279. Goodman, Jennifer, Plaintiff 1280. Goodman, Jeremy, Objecting Class Member 1281. Goodnight, Belinda, Objecting Class Member 1282. Gordon, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1283. Gordon Shaw Law Group, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1284. Gordon, Richard S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1285. Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1286. Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1287. Goswami, Subrata, Objecting Class Member 1288. Gottesman, Michael, Plaintiff 1289. Gottlieb, Mark, Plaintiff 1290. Gould, Tiffany, Objecting Class Member 1291. Gower, C. Jacob, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1292. Goza, Terry, Objecting Class Member 1293. Grabar Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1294. Grabar, Joshua J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1295. Grabowski, Rebecca, Objecting Class Member

CIP-37

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 39 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1296. Grady & Notis, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1297. Grafton, Nicole, Plaintiff 1298. Graham, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 1299. Graifman, Gary S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1300. Grajeda, Rueben, Plaintiff 1301. Gralak, Lynnette, Objecting Class Member 1302. Gray & White, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1303. Gray, Denise Carter, Plaintiff 1304. Gray, Mark K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1305. Gray, Walter, Objecting Class Member 1306. Green & Noblin, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1307. Green, Emily, Plaintiff 1308. Green, Gary, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1309. Green, John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1310. Green, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1311. Green, Latosha, Plaintiff 1312. Green, Lillian Katherine, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1313. Green, Robert S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1314. Green, Robeti, Objecting Class Member 1315. Green, Shannon, Objecting Class Member 1316. Green, Sherry, Plaintiff 1317. Green, Wendy, Objecting Class Member 1318. Greene, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 1319. Greenlee, Mary, Plaintiff 1320. Greenwald, Jennifer, Plaintiff 1321. Greenwood, Steven, Objecting Class Member 1322. Greenwood, Thomas, Plaintiff 1323. Gregory Law Firm, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1324. Gregory, Colton, Plaintiff 1325. Gregory, Steven P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1326. Grenier, John, Objecting Class Member 1327. Gresham, Dean, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1328. Grieper, Robert, Objecting Class Member 1329. Griest, Robert Douglas, counsel for Defendant(s) 1330. Griffin & Strong, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1331. Griffin, Eric, Plaintiff

CIP-38

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 40 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1332. Griffin, James, Objecting Class Member 1333. Griffin, Jennifer, Plaintiff 1334. Griffith, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 1335. Griggs, Lisa, Plaintiff 1336. Grogen, Joyce M., Plaintiff 1337. Gross & Belsky, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1338. Gross, Terry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1339. Grossberg, Josh, Plaintiff 1340. Grossberg, Josh, Settlement Class Representative 1341. Grossman Roth, PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1342. Grossman, Neil, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1343. Grover, Ralph, Objecting Class Member 1344. Grubaugh, Tonia, Objecting Class Member 1345. Grubb, II, Archie Irwin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1346. Gualandi, Evelyn, Plaintiff 1347. Guess, Jasmine, Plaintiff Settlement Class Representative 1348. Guillory, Jacob, Plaintiff 1349. Gulley, Roshunda, Plaintiff 1350. Gunola, Horica, Objecting Class Member 1351. Gurney, Michael, Objecting Class Member 1352. Gurtis, Amanda, Plaintiff 1353. Gustafson Gluek PLLC -MN, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1354. Gustafson, Daniel E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1355. Gutierrez, Julia, Plaintiff 1356. Guzman, Elio, Plaintiff 1357. Haber Slade, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1358. Haddon, Mallory E., Plaintiff 1359. Haeggquist & Eck, LLP -CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1360. Haeggquist, Alreen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1361. Hagen, Kelly, Objecting Class Member 1362. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP -WA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1363. Hagey, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1364. Hagman, Nickolas, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1365. Hagstrom, Richard M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1366. Hagy, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 1367. Haileselassie, Jade, former Plaintiff

CIP-39

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 41 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1368. Haines and Krieger, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1369. Haines, George, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1370. Hale, Ricky Lee, Plaintiff 1371. Hall & Lampros, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1372. Hall, Angela Michelle, Plaintiff 1373. Hall, Ashley Miranda, Plaintiff 1374. Hall, Catherine, Objecting Class Member 1375. Hall, Christopher Baker, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1376. Hall, Ivan, Objecting Class Member 1377. Halpin, Patrick, Plaintiff 1378. Hames, Virginia, Objecting Class Member 1379. Hamid, Nosheen T., Plaintiff 1380. Hamilton Cawley, Molly Renee- Counsel for Equifax Information Services LLC & Equifax, Inc. 1381. Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, counsel for Objectors Watkins and Frank 1382. Hamilton, Donald, Plaintiff 1383. Hamilton, Jason, Objecting Class Member 1384. Hamilton, Jesse, Plaintiff 1385. Hamilton, Sarah, Plaintiff 1386. Hamilton, Sybille, Objecting Class Member 1387. Hamm, Rick, Objecting Class Member 1388. Hammel, Douglas, Plaintiff 1389. Hammer, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 1390. Hammond, Dennis, Plaintiff 1391. Hammond, Ike, Objecting Class Member 1392. Hammond, John, Settlement Class Representative 1393. Hammond, Terry, Plaintiff 1394. Hamre, Angela, Plaintiff 1395. Hand, Austin Bradley, Plaintiff 1396. Handmaker, Sally M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1397. Handrock, John, Plaintiff 1398. Hanes, Elizabeth Wilson, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1399. Hanes, Elizabeth Wilson, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1400. Hannah, Kyle, Plaintiff 1401. Hannan, Mary, Defendant

CIP-40

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 42 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1402. Hanneke, Mandi, Objecting Class Member 1403. Hannon, Kevin S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1404. Hannon, Tom W., Plaintiff 1405. Hannon, Thomas, Settlement Class Representative 1406. Hannum, David, Objecting Class Member 1407. Hansen, Linda, Objecting Class Member 1408. Harding-Estes, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 1409. Hardy, Carissa, Objecting Class Member 1410. Hardy, Sarah L., former Plaintiff 1411. Harper, Annette, Objecting Class Member 1412. Harris Lowry Manton, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1413. Harris, Brian, Plaintiff 1414. Harris, David, Objecting Class Member 1415. Harris, Earl, Plaintiff 1416. Harris, Jasmine, Plaintiff 1417. Harris, Jeffrey R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1418. Harris, Jennifer, Settlement Class Representative 1419. Harris, Ramona, Objecting Class Member 1420. Harris, Theresa, Objecting Class Member 1421. Harris, Robert, Plaintiff 1422. Harris, Vanuel, Plaintiff 1423. Harrison, Belinda, Objecting Class Member 1424. Hart, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 1425. Harte, Lilliana, Plaintiff 1426. Hartheimer, David, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1427. Hartley Law Group, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1428. Hartley, David, Objecting Class Member 1429. Hartley, R. Dean, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1430. Hartman, Jared M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1431. Hartman, Mark, Objecting Class Member 1432. Harvey, Kismet, Settlement Class Representative 1433. Haskell, David, Objecting Class Member 1434. Haskins, II, Sidney Stewart, counsel for Defendant(s) 1435. Hasley-Eanes, Kourtney, Objecting Class Member 1436. Hatfield, Randall, Objecting Class Member 1437. Hatfield, Ted, Objecting Class Member

CIP-41

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 43 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1438. Hathaway, Christopher L., Plaintiff 1439. Haugen, Christopher J., counsel for Defendant(s) 1440. Hauk, Randall, Objecting Class Member 1441. Hausfeld, LLP - DC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1442. Hawker, Jordan, Objecting Class Member 1443. Hawkins, Ellen, Objecting Class Member 1444. Hawkins, Tabitha, Settlement Class Representative 1445. Hawkins, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 1446. Hawks, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1447. Hay, Donna, Objecting Class Member 1448. Hayden, Kellie, Objecting Class Member 1449. Hayes, Cara, Objecting Class Member 1450. Hayes, Renee, Plaintiff 1451. Hayes, Windish & Badgewick, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1452. Haylock, Darren, Plaintiff 1453. Hearlihy, Davis, Objecting Class Member 1454. Heath, Todd, Settlement Class Representative 1455. Hebert, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1456. Hebrlee, Craig, Plaintiff 1457. Heck, Jeremiah E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1458. Hedlund, Daniel C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1459. Heidt, Hannah, Objecting Class Member 1460. Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1461. Heisler, Jeremy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1462. Hejny, Darlene, Plaintiff 1463. Held, Bj, Objecting Class Member 1464. Helfand, Steven, Objecting Class Member 1465. Heller, Lisa L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1466. Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1467. Helmsworth, Christopher, Objecting Class Member 1468. Helton, Bob, Plaintiff 1469. Helton, Bob, Settlement Class Representative 1470. Hemphill, Craig Kyle, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1471. Hemphill, Morgan, Objecting Class Member 1472. Henderson, Joseph, Plaintiff 1473. Henderson, Shon, Plaintiff

CIP-42

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 44 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1474. Hendricks, Deborah, Plaintiff 1475. Heninger Garrison & Davis, LLC - AL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1476. Henion, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 1477. Henkel, Margaret, Plaintiff 1478. Henry, Cathy, Objecting Class Member 1479. Hensley, Barbara, Plaintiff 1480. Hepburn, Alexander S., Plaintiff 1481. Hepburn, Alexander, Settlement Class Representative 1482. Herman Gerel, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1483. Herman Jones LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1484. Herman, John C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1485. Herman, Matthew J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1486. Herman, Steven Alan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1487. Hermanson, Kiley, Objecting Class Member 1488. Hermina Law Group, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1489. Hermina, John W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1490. Hernandez, Amber, Plaintiff 1491. Hernandez, Nicki, Objecting Class Member 1492. Hernandez, Yvonne, Objecting Class Member 1493. Herrera, Daniel O., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1494. Herring, M. Stan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1495. Herrmann, Michael, Plaintiff 1496. Hershkowitz, Kory, Plaintiff 1497. Hesney, Solomon, Plaintiff 1498. Hess-Mahan, Theodore M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1499. Hetherington, Thomas F.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1500. Heywood, Paul, Objecting Class Member 1501. Hiatt, Karen, Objecting Class Member 1502. Hiatt, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 1503. Hicks, Aletha, Objecting Class Member 1504. Higgins, Hugh, Objecting Class Member 1505. Higgins, Katherine, Objecting Class Member 1506. Highfield, Christopher, Plaintiff 1507. Hildenbrand, Zacariah, Plaintiff 1508. Hilger, Paul, Objecting Class Member 1509. Hill, Ashley, Objecting Class Member

CIP-43

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 45 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1510. Hill, Catrice, Plaintiff Hill, Kazembe, Plaintiff 1511. Hill, Sarah, Objecting Class Member 1512. Hill, William, Plaintiff 1513. Hilliard & Munoz, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1514. Hilliard, Robert C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1515. Hinck, Walter, Plaintiff 1516. Hinzman, Joseph, Objecting Class Member 1517. Hirsch, Andrea Solomon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1518. Hirst, Nathan P., Plaintiff 1519. Hisamune, Chris, Objecting Class Member 1520. Hitchcock, Eva, Settlement Class Representative 1521. Hobbs, Jared, Objecting Class Member 1522. Hobson, John A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1523. Hoerman, Timothy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1524. Hoerman, Tor, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1525. Hoesly, Matthew Michael, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1526. Hoffman, Fred, Objecting Class Member 1527. Hoffmeyer, Charles, Objecting Class Member 1528. Hofhenke, Casey, Objecting Class Member 1529. Hogan Lovells, counsel for Defendant(s) 1530. Hogan Lovells, US LLP-DC, counsel for Defendant(s) 1531. Hogan, James, Plaintiff 1532. Hoge, III, Arthur F., counsel for Defendant(s) 1533. Hogencamp, Charles, Plaintiff 1534. Hogue & Belong, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1535. Hogue, Jeffrey L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1536. Holan, Mark, Plaintiff 1537. Holbrook, Teny, Objecting Class Member 1538. Holden, Lynne, Objecting Class Member 1539. Holden, Mark, Objecting Class Member 1540. Holder, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 1541. Holen, Mary L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1542. Holguin, Leonard Phillip, Plaintiff 1543. Holley, Sonia, Plaintiff 1544. Holloway, Angel, Plaintiff 1545. Holloway, Doris, Objecting Class Member

CIP-44

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 46 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1546. Holloway, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 1547. Hollowell, Melvin B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1548. Holly, Kathleen, Settlement Class Representative 1549. Holoman, M. Justin, Plaintiff 1550. Holtrop, James, Objecting Class Member 1551. Holtz Mahshie DeCosta, PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1552. Holyoak, Melissa, counsel for Objector 1553. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1554. Holzer, Corey Daniel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1555. Holzman, Steven C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1556. Honanian, Robert, Plaintiff 1557. Hood, Christopher B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1558. Hood, II, Joseph Alexander, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1559. Hood, James Carroll, Plaintiff 1560. Hood, Larry Bentley, Plaintiff 1561. Hood, Neva Joyce, Plaintiff 1562. Hoolwerf, Dan, Objecting Class Member 1563. Hootman, Dennis A., Plaintiff 1564. Hooser, Judy, Objecting Class Member 1565. Hopkins, Nathan W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1566. Hornblas, Michael, Settlement Class Representative 1567. Horne, David, Plaintiff 1568. Horowitz, Arlene, Objecting Class Member 1569. Horridge, Sherrill, Objecting Class Member 1570. Hortsmann, Cay, Objecting Class Member 1571. House, Aaron, Plaintiff House, Jesse, Plaintiff 1572. House, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 1573. Hoyer, Paul, Objecting Class Member 1574. Hovsepyan, Hovsep, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1575. Howard, Derek G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1576. Howard, John, Plaintiff 1577. Howard, Rickey L., Plaintiff 1578. Howard-Vesci, Luke, Plaintiff 1579. Hsu, Chaohsin, Objecting Class Member 1580. Hsu, Israel, Objecting Class Member 1581. Huang, Daniel, Objecting Class Member

CIP-45

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 47 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1582. Huang, Shiyang, Pro Se, Movant, Appellant 1583. Hubbard, Daven, Objecting Class Member 1584. Hudson & King, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1585. Hudson, Chanel, Plaintiff 1586. Hudson, Joseph Shane, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1587. Huettigs, Steve, Objecting Class Member 1588. Huey, John, Plaintiff 1589. Hughes, Brent, Plaintiff 1590. Hughes, Emily E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1591. Hughes, John, Plaintiff 1592. Hughes, Paula, Objecting Class Member 1593. Humphrey, James, Objecting Class Member 1594. Hunt, Michelle, Objecting Class Member 1595. Hunt, Robert, Plaintiff 1596. Hunter, Lola, former Plaintiff 1597. Huppert, Richard, Plaintiff 1598. Hurford, Peter, Objecting Class Member 1599. Hurst, Robert, Objecting Class Member 1600. Hussain, Mohammed, Objecting Class Member 1601. Hussin Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1602. Hussin, Tammy Gruder, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1603. Hutchins, Barry, Objecting Class Member 1604. Hutchins, Joyce, Objecting Class Member 1605. Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1606. Hutchinson, Christopher, Plaintiff 1607. Hutchinson, Cullen, Objecting Class Member 1608. Hutton, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1609. Hutz, Timothy, Plaintiff 1610. Hyatt, JoAnn, Plaintiff 1611. Hyrman, Joshua, Objecting Class Member 1612. Ialacci, Nick, Plaintiff 1613. Ingram, Tommie, Plaintiff 1614. Irmen, Carla, Objecting Class Member 1615. Irwin, Eric, Objecting Class Member 1616. Irwin, Michael, Plaintiff

CIP-46

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 48 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1617. Isaacs, LatTy, Objecting Class Member 1618. Isaacs, Linda, Objecting Class Member 1619. Isacoff, Mark, Plaintiff 1620. Isajiw, Peter, counsel for Defendant(s) 1621. Israel, Adam, Objecting Class Member 1622. Issis. Odeh J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1623. Isso & Hughes Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1624. Isso, Jennifer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1625. Itzhak, Krista, Plaintiff 1626. J. Benjamin Blakeman, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1627. Jackson, Anthony F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1628. Jakson, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 1629. Jackson, Kashmir A., Plaintiff 1630. Jackson, Kelly, Objecting Class Member 1631. Jackson, Marlon, Plaintiff 1632. Jackson, Theodore, Objecting Class Member 1633. Jacobs, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 1634. Jacobs, Nicole, Objecting Class Member 1635. Jacobson, Lawrence, Objecting Class Member 1636. Jacobson, Lawrence M., Pro Se, Movant 1637. Jacobus, Juliann, Objecting Class Member 1638. Jaetzold, Gary, Plaintiff 1639. Jagadam, Vidya Sagar, Defendant 1640. Jakucki, Joshua, Objecting Class Member 1641. Jaloszynski, Michael, Objecting Class Member 1642. James G. Stranch, IV, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1643. James, Alan, Objecting Class Member 1644. James, II, Charles, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1645. James, Donald, Objecting Class Member 1646. Janusz, Alexis Budinas, Plaintiff 1647. Jaret & Jaret, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1648. Jaret, Robert S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1649. Jasinski, Mathew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1650. Jaspers, Glenn, Plaintiff 1651. Jawa, Raj, Objecting Class Member 1652. Jazlowiecki, Edward A., Plaintiff

CIP-47

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 49 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1653. Jazlowiecki, Edward A., Pro Se 1654. Jean-Baptiste, Annjeannette, Objecting Class Member 1655. Jefferson, Deloris, Objecting Class Member 1656. Jeffries, Dina, Objecting Class Member 1657. Jelli Donuts, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1658. Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel, LLP -CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1659. Jenkins, Christian A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1660. Jenkins, Demetrice, Objecting Class Member 1661. Jenkins, Jeffry, Objecting Class Member 1662. Jenkins, Terry, Objecting Class Member 1663. Jensen, Benjamin C., counsel for Defendant(s) 1664. Jensen, Charlene, Objecting Class Member 1665. Jensen, Eric, Objecting Class Member 1666. Jenson, Ashley, Objecting Class Member 1667. Jett, Tammy, Plaintiff 1668. Jewel, Charles, Objecting Class Member 1669. Jimenez, Telesforo, Plaintiff 1670. JND Legal Administration Co. - Settlement Administrator 1671. Jobman, Carla, Objecting Class Member 1672. Joe, Christopher M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1673. John L. Green, CPA, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1674. Johns, Benjamin F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1675. Johns, Greg, former Plaintiff 1676. Johns, Megan, Objecting Class Member 1677. Johnson, Aaron M., Plaintiff 1678. Johnson, Angela Melton, Plaintiff 1679. Johnson, Arnold Melvin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1680. Johnson, Dawn, Plaintiff 1681. Johnson, Elvis A., Plaintiff 1682. Johnson, Ernestine, Plaintiff 1683. Johnson, Jess Brandel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1684. Johnson, Jessica, Plaintiff 1685. Johnson, Jonathan Wesley, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1686. Johnson, Kara, Objecting Class Member 1687. Johnson, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 1688. Johnson, Jr., Walter, former Plaintiff

CIP-48

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 50 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1689. Johnson, Larry, Objecting Class Member 1690. Johnson, Lisa C., former Plaintiff 1691. Johnson, Marjorie, Objecting Class Member 1692. Johnson, Robin, Objecting Class Member 1693. Johnson, Rodney H., Plaintiff 1694. Johnson, Victoria, Objecting Class Member 1695. Johnston Allison & Hord, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1696. Johnston, Heather, Plaintiff 1697. Johnston, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 1698. Jonathan W. Johnson, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1699. Jonckheer, Willem Frans, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1700. Jones Walker LLP, counsel for Defendant(s) 1701. Jones Walker, LLP-ATL, counsel for Defendant(s) 1702. Jones Ward, PLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1703. Jones, Beronica, Plaintiff 1704. Johns, Eric Objecting Class Member 1705. Jones, Frances, Plaintiff 1706. Jones, Heather, Objecting Class Member 1707. Jones, Jack, Objecting Class Member 1708. Jones, Jackie, Objecting Class Member 1709. Jones, Lisa Niambi, Plaintiff 1710. Jones, Makeshia, Objecting Class Member 1711. Joof, Henan Louis, Plaintiff 1712. Joost, Jennifer L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1713. Jordan, Brooke, Objecting Class Member 1714. Jordan, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 1715. Jordan, Patricia, Objecting Class Member 1716. Jorge, Christine, Plaintiff 1717. Josefsberg, Scott, Plaintiff 1718. Joseph Greenwald and Laake, PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1719. Joseph, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1720. Joshpe Law Group LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1721. Joshpe, Brett, Plaintiff 1722. Jovanovic, Dejan, Objecting Class Member 1723. Joyce, Benny, Objecting Class Member 1724. Judge, J., Objecting Class Member

CIP-49

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 51 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1725. Judkins, John, Pro Se, Movant 1726. Judkins, John, Objecting Class Member 1727. Judkins, Susan, Pro Se, Movant 1728. Judkins, Susan, Objecting Class Member 1729. Jungali, David, Plaintiff 1730. Just, Linda, Plaintiff 1731. Justice, Charles, Objecting Class Member 1732. Kaass Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1733. Kabateck, Brian S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1734. Kabateck, Brown & Kellner, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1735. Kacur, David, Settlement Class Representative 1736. Kaczmarek, James M., Plaintiff 1737. Kaczmarek, Kelly, Plaintiff 1738. Kaden, Brian, Plaintiff 1739. Kaether, Jason, Objecting Class Member 1740. Kahler, Ray W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1741. Kailies, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 1742. Kalmick, Bruce, Plaintiff 1743. Kam, Harald, Objecting Class Member 1744. Kamin, Correy A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1745. Kane, Julie Braman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1746. Kaneko, Tomoe, Objecting Class Member 1747. Kanterman, Jason Scott, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1748. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. -NY, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1749. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP-CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1750. Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1751. Kaplan, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 1752. Kaplan, Robert N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1753. Karo, Douglas, Objecting Class Member 1754. Kartchner, Sr., Milo Gene, Plaintiff 1755. Kartchner, Tamara Ann, Plaintiff 1756. Kasle, Douglas, Objecting Class Member 1757. Kates, Lori, Objecting Class Member 1758. Katona, Shanti Mulpuru, counsel for Defendant(s) 1759. Katz, Benjamin, Plaintiff

CIP-50

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 52 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1760. Katz, David, Objecting Class Member 1761. Katz, Josef, Plaintiff 1762. Katz, Leslie, Plaintiff 1763. Katz, Marisa C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1764. Kauffman, Carol L., Plaintiff 1765. Kauffman, Paul R., Plaintiff 1766. Kaufman, Avi Robert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1767. Kaufman, Simon, Plaintiff 1768. Kaufman, Tracy, Objecting Class Member 1769. Kealy, Victoria, Plaintiff 1770. Keaster, Gray, Objecting Class Member 1771. Keats, Marilyn, Objecting Class Member 1772. Keel, Teresa, Objecting Class Member 1773. Keenan, Michael S., Plaintiff 1774. Keheley, Timoth, Objecting Class Member 1775. Keith, Diana, Objecting Class Member 1776. Keith, Vickie, Objecting Class Member 1777. Keller Rohrback, L.L.P, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1778. Keller, Amy E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1779. Kelley Uustal, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1780. Kelly, Joseph Creed, Plaintiff 1781. Kelston, Henry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1782. Keltesch, Jodi, Objecting Class Member 1783. Kemp, Greta L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1784. Kemp, Michael, Defendant 1785. Kemraj, Sueann, Objecting Class Member 1786. Kendall, Christopher John, Plaintiff 1787. Kendrick, III, Hezzie, Plaintiff 1788. Kenneth Metzger, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1789. Kenney, Joseph B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1790. Kent & Risley, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1791. Kent, Daniel Arthur, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1792. Kerkman Wagner & Dunn, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1793. Kert, David Earl, Plaintiff 1794. Kesden, Gregory, Plaintiff 1795. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP -CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-51

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 53 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1796. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP-PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1797. Kessler, Adriane, Plaintiff 1798. Ketring, Heather, Objecting Class Member 1799. Kevin T. Moore, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1800. Khaddar, Kamel, Plaintiff 1801. Khalaf, Richard, Plaintiff 1802. Khalil, Chantal, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1803. Khamvongsa, Khampha, Plaintiff 1804. Khan, Sheeraz, Objecting Class Member 1805. Kiehl, David, Objecting Class Member 1806. Kielian, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 1807. Kier, Aloha, former Plaintiff 1808. Kier, Aloha, Settlement Class Representative 1809. Kier, Jackie L., former Plaintiff 1810. Kilgore, Shelbi, Plaintiff 1811. Kilker, Dan, Objecting Class Member 1812. Killings, Carolyn, Plaintiff 1813. Killorin, Robert W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1814. King & Spalding, counsel for Defendant(s) 1815. King, Bradley K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1816. King, Brenda, Settlement Class Representative 1817. King, Chris, Objecting Class Member 1818. King, Justin, Plaintiff 1819. King, Laurence D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1820. King, Lynn, Objecting Class Member 1821. King, Marandell, Objecting Class Member 1822. Kingsland, Scott, Plaintiff 1823. Kinslow, Travis, Objecting Class Member 1824. Kinsman, Robert, Plaintiff 1825. Kiramijyan, Armen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1826. Kirsch, Noah, Objecting Class Member 1827. Kirsch, Rebecca, Objecting Class Member 1828. Kiser, David, Objecting Class Member 1829. Kishel, Timothy S., Plaintiff 1830. Kisloff, I, Michelle Anne, counsel for Defendant(s) 1831. Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co. LPA, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-52

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 54 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1832. Kittredge, William, Plaintiff 1833. Kittrell, Daniel, Plaintiff 1834. Kittrell, William Bradford, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1835. Kivlan, Walter, Plaintiff 1836. Klavans, Jerry, Plaintiff 1837. Klein, Michael J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1838. Klein, Pamela, Plaintiff 1839. Klein, Steve, Plaintiff 1840. Kleiner, Brendon, Objecting Class Member 1841. Kleveno Jr., Alvin, Settlement Class Representative 1842. Klinem, Norma, Objecting Class Member 1843. Klisuric, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 1844. Klocm Michael, Objecting Class Member 1845. Klopfenstein, Brandon J, Plaintiff 1846. Kloss, Michael P., Plaintiff 1847. Klotzbaugh, Joanne, Settlement Class Representative 1848. Klotz, Steven, Objecting Class Member 1849. Knebel, Lara, Plaintiff 1850. Kneen, Jason, Objecting Class Member 1851. Knepper & Clark LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1852. Knepper, Matthew I., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1853. Knepper, Terrance, Plaintiff 1854. Knowles, Emily, Plaintiff 1855. Knudsen, William, Plaintiff 1856. Knudson, Amanda, Plaintiff 1857. Koble, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 1858. Kocak, Jordan, Objecting Class Member 1859. Kochanowski, Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1860. Kocher, Charles, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1861. Kodroff, Jeffrey L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1862. Koehler, Matthew, Plaintiff 1863. Koehn, Beth, Objecting Class Member 1864. Kohler, Charles, Objecting Class Member 1865. Kohn Swift & Graf, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1866. Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1867. Kohn, Joseph C., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-53

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 55 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1868. Kohn, Robert, Plaintiff 1869. Kohn, Susan, Plaintiff 1870. Koller, A. Laurie, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1871. Koller, Patricia A., Plaintiff 1872. Koluncich, Nicholas, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1873. Komen, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 1874. Komperda, James, Plaintiff 1875. Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1876. Kopelowitz Ostrow, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1877. Koretsky, Crystal, Plaintiff 1878. Koretsky, James, Plaintiff 1879. Korn, Ian, Objecting Class Member 1880. Korsinsky, Eduard, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1881. Korte, Barabara, Objecting Class Member 1882. Kosack, Karla, Plaintiff 1883. Koskoff Koskoff Bieder, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1884. Kozloff, Susan, Objecting Class Member 1885. Krachanus, Eric, Plaintiff 1886. Kranstuber, Scott, Plaintiff 1887. Krapivin, Viktor, Objecting Class Member 1888. Krasny, Robert, Objecting Class Member 1889. Kratovil, Jessica, Objecting Class Member 1890. Kravec, Jr., Joseph N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1891. Krawcyk, Jessica, Plaintiff 1892. Krieger, David H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1893. Krieger, Elazar, Objecting Class Member 1894. Krogman, Sandra, Objecting Class Member 1895. Krotine, Daniel John, Plaintiff 1896. Krout, Angela M., Plaintiff 1897. Krupnik, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 1898. Kubasiak, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 1899. Kucerak, Olga, Plaintiff 1900. Kuhns, Hampden, Plaintiff 1901. Kuklin, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 1902. Kuklin, Bradley, Objecting Class Member

CIP-54

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 56 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1903. Kula, Kenneth Paul, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1904. Kulathungham, Murali, Objecting Class Member 1905. Kurtz, Janet, Objecting Class Member 1906. Kurtz, Orin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1907. Kushner, Gray, Objecting Class Member 1908. Kuss, Joseph M., former Plaintiff 1909. Kutz, Christina, Plaintiff 1910. Kutz, Kyle, Plaintiff 1911. Kuver, Daphne, Objecting Class Member 1912. Labelle, Marcela, Objecting Class Member 1913. LaBreck, Peter J, Pro Se, Movant 1914. LaBreck, Peter, Objecting Class Member 1915. LaCien, Brian, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1916. Lacy Price & Wagner, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1917. Laforest, Sheneda, Plaintiff 1918. LaGasse, Marc, Plaintiff 1919. Laguardia Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1920. LaGuardia, Eric A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1921. Laguna, Justin, Objecting Class Member 1922. Lajoie, Benjamin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1923. Lakeshore Law Center, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1924. Laktonen, Douglas, Plaintiff 1925. Lamb, Ellen, Plaintiff 1926. Lamb, Owen, Plaintiff 1927. Lambert, Meredith L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1928. Lambiras, Jon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1929. Lamonica, Ronaold, Objecting Class Member 1930. LaMontagne, Michelle Marie, Plaintiff 1931. Lampros, Peter Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1932. Lanerout, Lawerence, Objecting Class Member 1933. Lange, Charles, Objecting Class Member 1934. Lang, Dan, former Plaintiff 1935. Lang, Elle, Objecting Class Member 1936. Langehaug, Mary, Objecting Class Member 1937. Langley, Katherine, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1938. Langston & Langston, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-55

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 57 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1939. Langston, Rebecca McRae, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1940. Langston, Shane Fredrick, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1941. Lanham, Michelle Elizabeth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1942. Lanier, Dawn, Objecting Class Member 1943. Lanier, W. Mark, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1944. Lanigan, Michael R., Plaintiff 1945. Lapter, Alain, Plaintiff 1946. Lapter, Ana, Plaintiff 1947. Larkin, Jr, Robert W., Plaintiff 1948. Larkins, Debbie, Plaintiff 1949. Larocchia, Lucia, Plaintiff 1950. Larson, Dianna, Plaintiff 1951. Last, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 1952. Latendresse, Jason, Objecting Class Member 1953. Laudato, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 1954. Laufenberg, Cari C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1955. Law, David, Objecting Class Member 1956. Law Office of A. Joseph Coomes, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1957. Law Office of Alex Arreaza, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1958. Law Office of Brian M. Garvine, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1959. Law Office of Gregory Joseph Allen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1960. Law Office of Jamie P. Clouser, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1961. Law Office of John Davis, counsel for Objector 1962. Law Office of Nicholas F. Ortiz, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1963. Law Office of Rhine Law Firm, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1964. Law Office of Rick Morin, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1965. Law Office of Steven C. Holzman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1966. Law Office of Steven F. Samilow, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1967. Law Office of Timothy Hoerman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1968. Law Offices of Alexander M. Schack, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1969. Law Offices of Charles James, II, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1970. Law Offices of David A. Bain, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1971. Law Offices of Gary Green, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1972. Law Offices of Geoffrey R. Romero, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1973. Law Offices of Gerald S. Ohn APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1974. Law Offices of Gus Michael Farinella, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-56

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 58 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

1975. Law Offices of Kevin Rogers, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1976. Law Offices of Maloney & Campolo, L.L.P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1977. Law Offices of Marc H. Richman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1978. Law Offices of Murphy & Associates PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1979. Law Offices of Nicholas Koluncich LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1980. Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1981. Law Offices of Richard R. Rosenthal, PC 1982. Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1983. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1984. Lawless, Jr, John R., counsel for Defendant(s) 1985. Lawson, Cheryl, Plaintiff 1986. Lawver, Joseph W., counsel for Defendant(s) 1987. , Joan, Plaintiff 1988. Lax Vaughn Fortson Rowe Threet P.A, counsel for Defendant(s) 1989. Le, David, Plaintiff 1990. Leach, Eric, Objecting Class Member 1991. Leblanc, Raymond, Objecting Class Member 1992. LeBow, James B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1993. Lechner, Jay P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1994. Ledbetter, Richard, Objecting Class Member 1995. Lederman, Vicki, Objecting Class Member 1996. Lee Holen Law Office, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 1997. Lee, Annie, Plaintiff 1998. Lee, Ariel, Plaintiff 1999. Lee, Debra, Settlement Class Representative 2000. Lee, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 2001. Leigh, Ralph, Plaintiff 2002. Lemmons, Brett, Settlement Class Representative 2003. Lemond, Jr., G. Franklin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2004. Lemoi, Brandi, Objecting Class Member 2005. Lenczewski, Daniel, Plaintiff 2006. Lenczewski, Nancy G., Plaintiff 2007. Leon Storie, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2008. Leoni, Robert Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2009. Lesowitz, Scott, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2010. Lester, Clarence, Plaintiff

CIP-57

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 59 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2011. Lester, Jr., Charles T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2012. Lester, Karen, Plaintiff 2013. Leveque, Roland, Objecting Class Member 2014. Levi and Korsinsky, LLP- CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2015. Levin Sedran & Berman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2016. Levin, Arnold, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2017. Levin, Daniel C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2018. Levin, Irwin B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2019. Levin, Joshua, Objecting Class Member 2020. Levin, Jr., Edward, Plaintiff 2021. Levine, Stephen M., Plaintiff 2022. Levinson, Noah, Objecting Class Member 2023. Levitt, Adam J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2024. Levy, David, Plaintiff 2025. Levy, James, Objecting Class Member 2026. Lewis, Christopher, Objecting Class Member 2027. Lewis, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 2028. Lewis, Donna, Objecting Class Member 2029. Lewis, Frederick, Objecting Class Member 2030. Lewis, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 2031. Lewis, John, Plaintiff 2032. Lewis, Jon M., former Plaintiff 2033. Lewis, Jordan M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2034. Lewis, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 2035. Lewis, Mark D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2036. Lewis, Richard, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2037. Lewis, Pamela, Objecting Class Member 2038. Leyrer, Jennifer Louise, Plaintiff 2039. Li Rosa, Objecting Class Member 2040. Libasci, Barron A., Plaintiff 2041. Lieberman, Jeremy A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2042. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein-CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2043. Liftik, Michael E., counsel for Defendant(s) Richard F. Smith 2044. Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2045. Lindemann, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 2046. Lindgren, Drew, Objecting Class Member

CIP-58

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 60 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2047. Lindsay, Heather, Objecting Class Member 2048. Lindsay, Julia, Plaintiff 2049. Lindsey, Wesley, Objecting Class Member 2050. Lineberry, Quentin, Objecting Class Member 2051. Linich, Margret, Plaintiff 2052. Linker, David, Plaintiff 2053. Linsheid, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 2054. Lipari, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 2055. Lipchitz, Bryan, Plaintiff 2056. Lipner, Leah, Settlement Class Representative 2057. Lisk, Bernard, Objecting Class Member 2058. Liska, John, Objecting Class Member 2059. Liu, Su, Objecting Class Member 2060. Llewellyn, Shanna, Objecting Class Member 2061. Lloyd, Lester, Objecting Class Member 2062. Locke, Leslie, Objecting Class Member 2063. Locks Law Firm, LLC - NJ, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2064. Lockwood, Steven, Objecting Class Member 2065. Loeb, Roger, Objecting Class Member 2066. Loeffel, Jay, Plaintiff 2067. Loeser, Derek W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2068. Loeser, Thomas E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2069. Long, Terrence, Objecting Class Member 2070. Longman, Howard Theodore, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2071. Longrich, Mark J., Plaintiff 2072. Longway, Tracey, Objecting Class Member 2073. Lonis, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 2074. Loo, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 2075. Looney, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 2076. Lopez, Robert F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2077. Lots, Amanda, Plaintiff 2078. Love, Gary, Objecting Class Member 2079. Lowden, Brandon, Objecting Class Member 2080. Lowe, James, Objecting Class Member 2081. Lowe, Yorkman, former Plaintiff 2082. Lowell, Austin, Objecting Class Member

CIP-59

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 61 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2083. Lowry, Stephen G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2084. Lowry, Stephen G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2085. Lu, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 2086. Luc, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 2087. Lucero, Manuel, Plaintiff 2088. Luchetti, Joseph, Objecting Class Member 2089. Luckett Tyner Law Firm, P.A., counsel for Defendant(s) 2090. Luckett, Jr., William O., counsel for Defendant(s) 2091. Ludolph, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2092. Luebke, Angela, Objecting Class Member 2093. Luftman & Heck and Associates, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2094. Lugrin, IV, George H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2095. Lumb, Kenneth Thomas, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2096. Lunkvitz, Terry, Plaintiff 2097. Luongo, Eric, Objecting Class Member 2098. Lutz, Katherine, Objecting Class Member 2099. Lynch, Alexandra Elizabeth, Plaintiff 2100. Lynch, Alicia, Plaintiff 2101. Lynch, Barton, Objecting Class Member 2102. Lynch, Jacob, Objecting Class Member 2103. Lynch, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2104. Lynch, Reagan, Plaintiff 2105. Lynch, Travis Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2106. Lyons Law Firm, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2107. Lyons, Jr., Thomas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2108. Lyons, Kathleen, Plaintiff 2109. Lyons, Thomas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2110. Maar, Carl, Plaintiff 2111. Macabatat, Ryan, Objecting Class Member 2112. Macdonald, Nicholas, Objecting Class Member 2113. Macedonia, Jane Guzi, Plaintiff 2114. MacInnis, John, Plaintiff 2115. MacInnis, Kennedy, Objecting Class Member 2116. Mack, Tanya, Plaintiff 2117. Mack, Timothy, former Plaintiff 2118. Mackey, Belinda, Plaintiff

CIP-60

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 62 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2119. Mackleer, Jack, Plaintiff 2120. MacPherson, Jennifer L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2121. Maddox, Hargett & Caruso, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2122. Maddox, Mark E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2123. Madison, Steven G., counsel for Defendant(s) 2124. Madsen, Ivy, Plaintiff 2125. Madsen, Mike, Plaintiff 2126. Maese, Santiago, Objecting Class Member 2127. Maggiacomo, Patricia, Plaintiff 2128. Magnanini, Robert A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2129. Mah, Rosanne L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2130. Maher, David J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2131. Maholm, Timothy, Plaintiff 2132. Mahutga, Matthew Case, Plaintiff 2133. Maizitis, Peter, Plaintiff 2134. Majewski, Marc, Objecting Class Member 2135. Maldonado, Kelly, Objecting Class Member 2136. Mallahan, Kristopher A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2137. Mallh, Victor, Plaintiff 2138. Malmstrom, Carl V., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2139. Malone, Donald D., Plaintiff 2140. Malone, Evelyn, Objecting Class Member 2141. Malone, Keeya S., Plaintiff 2142. Malone, Thomas, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2143. Maloney, Debra, Plaintiff 2144. Maloney, Tim, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2145. Maloney, Timothy F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2146. Malvasi, Peter, Plaintiff 2147. Mamone, James, Objecting Class Member 2148. Manaher, Alison, Plaintiff 2149. Manco, Justin Edison, Plaintiff 2150. Mandolfo, Samuel, Objecting Class Member 2151. Mandros, Metthew, Objecting Class Member 2152. Manian, Susan, Objecting Class Member 2153. Mann, Daniel J., Plaintiff 2154. Mannacio, Eugene, Objecting Class Member

CIP-61

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 63 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2155. Manning, April, Plaintiff 2156. Manning, Danielle Leigh, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2157. Manning, Franklin, Plaintiff 2158. Manning, Samiya, Plaintiff 2159. Manopla, Abraham, Plaintiff 2160. Manopla, Evelyn, Plaintiff 2161. Manopla, Fortuna, Plaintiff 2162. Manopla, Lilian, Plaintiff 2163. Mansfield, Jill, Objecting Class Member 2164. Mansfield, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2165. Mansfield, Neal, Objecting Class Member 2166. Manter, Alexander, Objecting Class Member 2167. Manton, Jed Davis, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2168. Maranville, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 2169. Marchese, Joseph I., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2170. Marchiando, Craig C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2171. Marcus, Theodore, Objecting Class Member 2172. Marcussen, Carin L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2173. Mardock, April, Plaintiff 2174. Maredia, Imtiaz, Plaintiff 2175. Maredia, Mumtaz, Plaintiff 2176. Mares, Gary, Plaintiff 2177. Margelony, Leah, Objecting Class Member 2178. Mariani, Christine, Objecting Class Member 2179. Marino, Lou, Plaintiff 2180. Marino, Michael, Objecting Class Member 2181. Marion, Darin, Plaintiff 2182. Markle, Ronald, Objecting Class Member 2183. Markowitz, Stacy, former Plaintiff 2184. Marks, Marcia, Objecting Class Member 2185. Marquardt, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 2186. Marrs, Paul, Plaintiff 2187. Marrs, Tammy, Plaintiff 2188. Marshall, Edward Alexander, counsel for Defendant(s) 2189. Marshall, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 2190. Marshall, Qunay, Objecting Class Member

CIP-62

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 64 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2191. Marshall, Robert, Objecting Class Member 2192. Martell, Christina, Plaintiff 2193. Martin White, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2194. Martin, Carolyn, Objecting Class Member 2195. Martin, Daniel, Plaintiff 2196. Martin, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 2197. Martin, Drew, Plaintiff 2198. Martin, Faith, Objecting Class Member 2199. Martin, James, Plaintiff 2200. Martin, Jeremy, Objecting Class Member 2201. Martin, Jr., William Marvin, Plaintiff 2202. Martin, Patrice, Objecting Class Member 2203. Martin, Ronald, Objecting Class Member 2204. Martin, Sean J., Plaintiff 2205. Martin, Teresa Sue, Plaintiff 2206. Martinez, Anna, Plaintiff 2207. Martinez, Gary, former Plaintiff 2208. Martinez, Jacqueline, former Plaintiff 2209. Martinho, Carlos, Plaintiff 2210. Martucci, Maria, Settlement Class Representative 2211. Martyn, Terri, Objecting Class Member 2212. Marx, John, Objecting Class Member 2213. Marx, Victoria, Objecting Class Member 2214. Mashburn, Dori M., former Plaintiff 2215. Masie, Catherine, Objecting Class Member 2216. Mason, Cindy, Objecting Class Member 2217. Mason, Gary Edward, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2218. Mason, Julia, Objecting Class Member 2219. Mastando & Artrip, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2220. Mastando, Dennis A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2221. Mathews, D. Todd, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2222. Matuit, Samuel, Objecting Class Member 2223. Matson, Carol, Objecting Class Member 2224. Mattice, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 2225. Mattock, Bruce, former Plaintiff 2226. Mattock, Bruce, Plaintiff

CIP-63

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 65 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2227. Matusko, Joanne E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2228. Mauldin, Susan, Defendant 2229. Maureemootoo, Peter, Objecting Class Member 2230. Maxwell, Craig, Plaintiff 2231. Maxwell, Stephen C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2232. May, Delitha, Settlement Class Representative 2233. May, Joel, Objecting Class Member 2234. Maya, Theodore Walter, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2235. Mayerson & Hartheimer, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2236. Mayerson, Sandra E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2237. Maynard, Rickey, Objecting Class Member 2238. Mayweather, Paula, Plaintiff 2239. McAllister, Ira, Objecting Class Member 2240. Mcardle, Alyssa, Plaintiff 2241. McBride, Blake, Plaintiff 2242. McCable, Margaret, Plaintiff 2243. McCaffrey, Meghan A., counsel for Defendant(s) Richard F. Smith 2244. McCall, Dorothy, Objecting Class Member 2245. McCall, Madison, Objecting Class Member 2246. McCall, Richard, Plaintiff 2247. McCall, William, Objecting Class Member 2248. McCalla, Alexander, Plaintiff 2249. McCann, Antonietta, former Plaintiff 2250. McCartney, Raymond, Plaintiff 2251. McClain, Brian, Objecting Class Member 2252. McClain, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 2253. McClung, Morgan, Plaintiff 2254. McClure, Kyle, Plaintiff 2255. McConnell, Sari, Objecting Class Member 2256. McCormick, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 2257. McCormick, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 2258. McCune, Wright, Arevalo, LLP -PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2259. McDonald, Wallace A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2260. McDonough, III, James F. counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2261. McDonough, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 2262. McDowell Hetherington, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-64

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 66 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2263. McDowell, Andrew, Plaintiff 2264. McEntyre, Zachary Andrew, counsel for Defendant(s) 2265. McGarry, Finbar, Objecting Class Member 2266. McGonnigal, James, Plaintiff 2267. McGowan Hood Felder & Johnson - Mt. SC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2268. McGrath, V. Brandon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2269. McGregor, Ann, Objecting Class Member 2270. McGregor, Kristi Stahnke, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2271. McGuire, Daniel D., counsel for Defendant(s) 2272. McHenry, William Thomas, Plaintiff 2273. McHill, Mary, Plaintiff 2274. McKany, Steven M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2275. McKenna Long & Aldridge, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2276. McKenney & Froelich, counsel for Objector 2277. McKenzie, William, Objecting Class Member 2278. McKinney, Maggie, Plaintiff 2279. McKnight, H. Vincent, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2280. McMullan, Jr., Plaintiff 2281. McLane, Margaret, Objecting Class Member 2282. McLaughlin, Leo, Objecting Class Member 2283. McLeod, Karen, Objecting Class Member 2284. Mcloughlin, Kathryn, Objecting Class Member 2285. McMillan, Roy, Objecting Class Member 2286. David Malcolm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2287. McNabb Bragorgos & Burgess, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2288. McNamara, Douglas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2289. McNeely, Alacyn, Objecting Class Member 2290. McNeeley, Madeline Elizabeth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2291. McNeeley, Madeline Elizabeth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2292. McNickles, Geoffrey, Objecting Class Member 2293. McNulty, Shannon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2294. McNulty, Shannon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2295. McShan, Edward Dean, former Plaintiff 2296. McShan, II, Edward Dean, former Plaintiff 2297. Meachum, Jennifer A., Plaintiff

CIP-65

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 67 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2298. Mead, Terry, Plaintiff 2299. Meade, Suzanne, Plaintiff 2300. Meadows, Christopher G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2301. Mee Mee Hoge & Epperson PLLP, counsel for Defendant(s) 2302. Meegan, Rebecca, Objecting Class Member 2303. Meidinger, Paul, Objecting Class Member 2304. Meirer, Jane, Objecting Class Member 2305. Meiselas, Benjamin Jared, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2306. Melby, Allan, Objecting Class Member 2307. Melegari, Lisa, Plaintiff 2308. Melrath, Jason, Plaintiff 2309. Melton, Jason M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2310. Melzer, Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2311. Mendoza, Julia, Plaintiff 2312. Mendoza, Nicci, Plaintiff 2313. Mendoza, Zandra, Plaintiff 2314. Menzer, Allan, Plaintiff 2315. Merino, Brooke, Plaintiff 2316. Merino, Diana, Objecting Class Member 2317. Merino, Javier Luis, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2318. Mertlich, Jennifer, Plaintiff 2319. Messer, David Mark, counsel for Defendant(s) 2320. Messer, Jr., Clifton Ralph, Plaintiff 2321. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., counsel for Defendant(s) 2322. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., counsel for Defendant(s) 2323. Metzgar, Geogory Michael, Plaintiff 2324. Metzgar, Kimberly Joy C., Plaintiff 2325. Metzger, Kenneth Albert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2326. Meyeer, Alan, Objecting Class Member 2327. Meyer, Amanada, Objecting Class Member 2328. Meyer & Nunez, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2329. Meyers, Jody, Plaintiff 2330. Meyers, Scott, Plaintiff 2331. MHC Law, LLC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2332. Miceli, David F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2333. Michaeli, Daniel, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-66

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 68 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2334. Michel, Thristian, Plaintiff 2335. Michelle E. Lanham Attorney at Law, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2336. Mickelsen Dalton LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2337. Mickelsen, Brian Christian, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2338. Mikolatits, Mike, Objecting Class Member 2339. Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2340. Miles, III, W. Daniel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2341. Miles, Matthew, Plaintiff 2342. Miles, Seth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2343. Mille, Wakeelah, Plaintiff 2344. Miller, Angela Lynn, Plaintiff 2345. Miller, Bradley, Plaintiff 2346. Miller, Cade, Plaintiff 2347. Miller, Dale, former Plaintiff 2348. Miller, David Waterstram, Plaintiff 2349. Miller, David, Objecting Class Member 2350. Miller, E. Powell, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2351. Miller, Jason Wallace, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2352. Miller, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 2353. Miller, Michael, Plaintiff 2354. Miller, Mike, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2355. Miller, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 2356. Miller, Sonja, Objecting Class Member 2357. Miller, Todd Michael, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2358. Miller, Vess Allen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2359. Milligan, Maria, Objecting Class Member 2360. Mills, John, Objecting Class Member 2361. Mills- Thysen, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2362. Milsted, David, Objecting Class Member 2363. Mims, Ronda, Objecting Class Member 2364. Mindling, James, Objecting Class Member 2365. Miner, Curtis B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2366. Minick, Robert, Objecting Class Member 2367. Minka, Bryan, Plaintiff 2368. Minka, Jacqueline, Plaintiff

CIP-67

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 69 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2369. Minnilo & Jenkins Co., LPA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2370. Minter, Timothy, Objecting Class Member 2371. Mirarchi, Anthony, Plaintiff 2372. Mirarchi, Anthony, Settlement Class Representative 2373. Mitchel, Ernesto, Plaintiff 2374. Mitchell, Lauren, Objecting Class Member 2375. Mitchell, Linda, Objecting Class Member 2376. Mitchell, Richard, Objecting Class Member 2377. Mitchell, Roger, Objecting Class Member 2378. Mitchell, William, Objecting Class Member 2379. Mobbs, Robert, Plaintiff 2380. Mobley, Renee, Objecting Class Member 2381. Moellmer, Alison, Plaintiff 2382. Mogelberg, Chris, Plaintiff 2383. Mohamadi, Ashkahn, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2384. Mohamedali, Sakina, Plaintiff 2385. Molenda, J, Objecting Class Member 2386. Mollaie, Mahri, Plaintiff 2387. Molo Lamken, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2388. Molo, Steven F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2389. Molumphy, Mark Cotton, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2390. Monahan, Sara, Objecting Class Member 2391. Moncagatta, Claudia, Objecting Class Member 2392. Monday, Antonio Barsonda, Plaintiff 2393. Moneypenny, Mary Hexter, Plaintiff 2394. Mongiat, James, Objecting Class Member 2395. Moore, Brad J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2396. Moore, Charles, Objecting Class Member 2397. Moore, Diane S, Plaintiff 2398. Moore, Hollie, former Plaintiff 2399. Moore, Jimmie, Plaintiff 2400. Moore, John Austin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2401. Moore, Kevin Trent, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2402. Moore, Linda, Objecting Class Member 2403. Moore, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2404. Moore, Mary, Objecting Class Member

CIP-68

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 70 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2405. Moore, Michael, Plaintiff 2406. Moore, Paul, Objecting Class Member 2407. Moore, Patrick B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2408. Moore, Steven J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2409. Moore, Wendy, Objecting Class Member 2410. Moorehead, Stacey, Objecting Class Member 2411. Morales, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 2412. Morales, Rosendo, Objecting Class Member 2413. Moran, Dow, Objecting Class Member 2414. Moreno, Eric Objecting Class Member 2415. Morgan & Morgan, P.A. -T.FL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2416. Morgan, Bridget Gallagher, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2417. Morgan, Dennis, Objecting Class Member 2418. Morgan, Felicia, Objecting Class Member 2419. Morgan, John, Plaintiff 2420. Morgan, Julie, Plaintiff 2421. Morgan, Sharon, Plaintiff 2422. Moriarty, William, Plaintiff 2423. Morin, Charles, Plaintiff 2424. Morin, Richard John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2425. Morin, Susan, Plaintiff 2426. Morris, Daniel Ellis, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2427. Morris, Grant E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2428. Morris, James, Objecting Class Member 2429. Morris, Jason, Plaintiff 2430. Morrison, Robert, Objecting Class Member 2431. Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson & Deola, PLLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2432. Morton, Henry, Objecting Class Member 2433. Morvin, Bonnie, Plaintiff Moscato, Beth, Pro Se, Movant 2434. Moscato, Beth, Objecting Class Member 2435. Moscato- Goodpastor, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 2436. Mosley, Donna, Plaintiff 2437. Motley Rice, LLC-SC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2438. Muhammad, Gerald, Plaintiff 2439. Mullane, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member

CIP-69

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 71 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2440. Mullen P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2441. Mullen, Wesley Martin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2442. Mulligan, Daniel J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2443. Mullins, Steven, Objecting Class Member 2444. Munson, Morgan Objecting Class Member 2445. Murch, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 2446. Murdock, Rochelle, Plaintiff 2447. Murdock, Shawn, Plaintiff 2448. Murphy & Associates PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2449. Murphy & Falcon, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2450. Murphy Falcon & Murphy, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2451. Murphy, David M, counsel for Plaintiff(s). 2452. Murphy, III, William H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2453. Murphy, Jr., William Hughes, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2454. Murphy, John, Objecting Class Member 2455. Murphy, Kerri, Plaintiff 2456. Murphy, Kerri, Plaintiff 2457. Murphy, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 2458. Murphy, Leslie C., Plaintiff 2459. Murray Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2460. Myers, Joan, Objecting Class Member 2461. Myers, John, Objecting Class Member 2462. Myers, Shelia, Objecting Class Member 2463. Myers, Sr., Terry, Plaintiff 2464. Nabors, Jason L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2465. Nabors, Jason L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2466. Naddeo, James A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2467. Nadler, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 2468. Namoski, Chrisitne, Objecting Class Member 2469. Namovic, John, Objecting Class Member 2470. Namovic, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 2471. Namovic, Leanne, Objecting Class Member 2472. Nannis, Veronica Byam, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2473. Napier, Barry, Plaintiff 2474. Napier, Barry, Settlement Class Representative 2475. Narayan, Akshay, Objecting Class Member

CIP-70

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 72 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2476. Nast, Dianne M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2477. Nastlaw, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2478. Nathan, II, Edward, Plaintiff 2479. Navarro, Christina Objecting Class Member 2480. Naylor, Rachel, Objecting Class Member 2481. Nazario, Christina J., Plaintiff 2482. Nazrio, Mark A., Plaintiff 2483. Neal, Harison, Objecting Class Member 2484. Nealon, James E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2485. Needleman, Joann, counsel for Defendant(s) 2486. Nehring, Michael, Plaintiff 2487. Neil, David, Objecting Class Member 2488. Neilan, Sean, Plaintiff 2489. Neilan, Sean, Plaintiff 2490. Nelson, Korey A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2491. Nelson, Pete, Plaintiff 2492. Neuman, Alex, Objecting Class Member 2493. Neumann, Alex, Objecting Class Member 2494. Newby, Robeli, Objecting Class Member 2495. Newcomer, Larry, former Plaintiff 2496. Newhart, Erica, Objecting Class Member 2497. Newkirk, Jeff, Plaintiff 2498. Newsome, Linda, Plaintiff 2499. Neyens, Sara, Objecting Class Member 2500. Neyman, Yelena, Objecting Class Member 2501. Nguyen, Ly, Objecting Class Member 2502. Nguyen, Tien Phi, Plaintiff 2503. Nichols, Kelly, Objecting Class Member 2504. Nickerson, Desirea, Objecting Class Member 2505. Nickolls, Robin, Objecting Class Member 2506. Nielson, Jerry, Plaintiff 2507. Nielson, Michelle, Plaintiff 2508. Nitkin, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 2509. Nixon Vogelman Barry Slawsky & Simoneau PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2510. Nixon, Leslie C., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-71

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 73 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2511. Noa, Guy Kamealoha, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2512. Noblin, James Robert, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2513. Nocon, Shannon F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2514. Nolan, Glenntavius, Plaintiff 2515. Normoyle, Dana James, Plaintiff 2516. Normoyle, Sharon, Plaintiff 2517. Norris, Carol, Objecting Class Member 2518. Norris, Destinni, Plaintiff 2519. Norris, Michael, Plaintiff 2520. Norris, Wayne, Plaintiff 2521. North, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 2522. Nosek, Carl, Objecting Class Member 2523. Noster, Gloria, Plaintiff 2524. Noster, Russell A., Plaintiff 2525. Nowinsky, Craig, Plaintiff 2526. Nowyj, Paul, Objecting Class Member 2527. Nunez, David Anthony, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2528. Nuosci, Paul, Plaintiff 2528A. Nutley, Benjamin, counsel for Objector John W. Davis 2529. Nutt, Jerry, Plaintiff 2530. Oberle, Bryan C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2531. Oberst, Daniel E., Plaintiff 2532. Obradovich, Hannah, Plaintiff 2533. Obrien, Arthur, Objecting Class Member 2534. O'Brien Law Firm, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2535. O'Brien, Edward K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2536. O'Brien, Regional Manager Kevin, former Plaintiff 2537. O'Brien, Sarah, former Plaintiff 2538. O'Dell & O'Neal, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2539. O'Dell Properties, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2540. O’Dell, Justin, Settlement Class Representative 2541. Odem, Amy, Objecting Class Member 2542. Odem, Anna, Objecting Class Member 2543. Odem, Steve, Objecting Class Member 2544. Odem, Vicky, Objecting Class Member 2545. Oechslin, Kristin, Objecting Class Member

CIP-72

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 74 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2546. Offenbach, Seth, Objecting Class Member 2547. Office of George E. Butler, II, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2548. Office of Grant E. Morris, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2549. Ogburn, John, Plaintiff 2550. Ogden, Pamela Sue, Plaintiff 2551. Ogden, Simon, Objecting Class Member 2552. Ohara, Catherine, Objecting Class Member 2553. Ohn, Gerald S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2554. Ojeda, Steve, Plaintiff 2555. Oldja, Andrea, Plaintiff 2556. Oldja, Paul, Plaintiff 2557. Oleson, Dana, Plaintiff 2558. Olin, Michael S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2559. Olivo, Amy, Objecting Class Member 2560. Olivo, Lisa, Plaintiff 2561. Olsen Daines PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2562. Olsen, Aaron M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2563. Olsen- Ecker, Britt, Objecting Class Member 2564. Olson, Dana, Plaintiff 2565. Olson, Kyle, Plaintiff 2566. Olson, Kyle, Settlement Class Representative 2567. Omara, Virginia, Objecting Class Member 2568. One Cent Lane, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2569. O'Neal, Charles, Plaintiff 2570. O'Neill, Kevin, former Plaintiff 2571. O'Neill, Michelle, Plaintiff 2572. Onkst, Claudia, Objecting Class Member 2573. Oppenheimer, Brett H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2574. Orchard, III, Mel, Plaintiff 2575. Orchard III, Mel, Settlement Class Representative 2576. O'Reardon, Thomas J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2577. Orlando, Dominis, Objecting Class Member 2578. Orloff, Michael Steven, Plaintiff 2579. Ort, Tina, Objecting Class Member 2580. Ortiz, Nicholas F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2581. Osborne, Edward, Plaintiff

CIP-73

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 75 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2582. Oselin, Sharon Suzanne, Plaintiff 2583. Ostoya, Paul, Plaintiff 2584. Ostrow, Jeffrey Miles, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2585. Otsuka, Gregory S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2586. Overton, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 2587. Owens, Brian M., Plaintiff 2588. Owens, Denny, Objecting Class Member 2589. Owens, James, Objecting Class Member 2590. Ozzello Practice PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2591. Ozzello, Mark A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2592. Pacelli, Robert, Plaintiff 2593. Pacheco, Anna, Plaintiff 2594. Pacheco, Juan, Plaintiff 2595. Packwood, Joseph, Settlement Class Representative 2596. Padjen, Sheryl, Objecting Class Member 2597. Pagliarulo, John J., Plaintiff 2598. Pagliarulo, John, Settlement Class Representative 2599. Paik, Deanna, Plaintiff 2600. Palmer, Tania, Objecting Class Member 2601. Palmer, Tanya, Plaintiff 2602. Paltzik, Edward Andrew, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2603. Brett Joshpe, Plaintiff 2604. Palumbo, Frank, Plaintiff 2605. Palumbo, Jeanne, Plaintiff 2606. Pan, Arthur, Objecting Class Member 2607. Pang, Natalie S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2608. Pantaze, Nikolaos C, Plaintiff 2609. Pantek, Russell, former Plaintiff 2610. Parish Guy Castillo, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2611. Parish, William H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2612. Parker, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 2613. Parker, Jennifer, Plaintiff 2614. Parker, Patrick, Objecting Class Member 2615. Parker, Ronald, Plaintiff 2616. Parker, Tamara, Objecting Class Member 2617. Parkhill, Anthony Lee, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-74

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 76 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2618. Parkhill, Hayden D., Plaintiff 2619. Parks, Richard, Settlement Class Representative 2620. Parr, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 2621. Parrott, Sean, Plaintiff 2622. Parrow, Clara, Settlement Class Representative 2623. Parson, Dale, Plaintiff 2624. Partin, Ranse M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2625. Partridge, Barron, Plaintiff 2626. Partridge, Tom, Plaintiff 2627. Pascal, Bruce, Plaintiff 2628. Pascal, Bruce, Settlement Class Representative 2629. Pascucci, Michael James, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2630. Paslay, Judy, Objecting Class Member 2631. Passeri, Joseph, Objecting Class Member 2632. Pate, Johnson & Church, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2633. Pate, Page Anthony, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2634. Patrick, Stephanie, former Plaintiff 2635. Patten, Jr., Marvin Allen, Plaintiff 2636. Patten, Julie, Objecting Class Member 2637. Patterson Law Firm, LLP - IA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2638. Patterson, Annabelle Lee, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2639. Patterson, Dean, Objecting Class Member 2640. Patterson, Sylvia, Settlement Class Representative 2641. Patton, Bridget J., Plaintiff 2642. Patton, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 2643. Patton, Josh, Objecting Class Member 2644. Paul W. Bishop, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2645. Paul, Richard, Plaintiff 2646. Paulo, Wanda, Settlement Class Representatives 2647. Pavesi, Jr., Charles, Plaintiff 2648. Pavitt, Jodie, Plaintiff 2649. Payne Law Firm, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2650. Payne, Donnie, Objecting Class Member 2651. Payne, Graeme, Defendant 2652. Payne, Lori, Objecting Class Member 2653. Payne, Sean N., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-75

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 77 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2654. Payne, William T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2655. Payton, Louis, Objecting Class Member 2656. Payton, Rusty, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2657. Payton, Dann, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2658. Peacock, James, Plaintiff 2659. Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2660. Pearson, Lara, Defendant 2661. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2662. Peay, Stewart O., counsel for Defendant(s) 2663. Peck, David Hill, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2664. Peck, Deana, Objecting Class Member 2665. Pedroza, Richard, Plaintiff 2666. Peeler, Kate, Objecting Class Member 2667. Pellitteri, Carmen, Plaintiff 2668. Peltier, Justin, Plaintiff 2669. Pena, Christian, Objecting Class Member 2670. Pena, Katherine, Objecting Class Member 2671. Pengra, Patricia, Objecting Class Member 2672. Penney, Brant D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2673. Pepper Hamilton-DC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2674. Perez, Jose, Plaintiff 2675. Perez, Oshik, Plaintiff 2676. Perkin & Faria, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2677. Perkin, John F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2678. Perkins Thompson, PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2679. Perkins, Dallas, Plaintiff 2680. Perkins, Dallas, Settlement Class Representative 2681. Perkins, Monica Rae, Plaintiff 2682. Permar, Jeffery, Objecting Class Member 2683. Perotti, Gloria, Objecting Class Member 2684. Persinger, Melanie Rae, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2685. Person, Deborah, Plaintiff 2686. Person, Donald, Plaintiff 2687. Pescia, Leslie L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2688. Pesek, Greg, Plaintiff 2689. Peter, Brian Objecting Class Member

CIP-76

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 78 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2690. Peters, Christopher, Plaintiff 2691. Peters, Magaret, Objecting Class Member 2692. Peterson, Charles, Objecting Class Member 2693. Peterson, Jean, Objecting Class Member 2694. Peterson, Kenneth, Plaintiff 2695. Peterson, Robert- Objecting Class Member 2696. Peterson, Ron, Objecting Class Member 2697. Peterson, Sonja, Objecting Class Member 2698. Peterson, Walter, Objecting Class Member 2699. Petroplus, Parry, Plaintiff 2700. Petrungaro, Andrea E., 2701. Plaintiff Pettery, Melinda, Plaintiff 2702. Pevey, William, Objecting Class Member 2703. Pfaff, James A., Plaintiff 2704. Pfahl, Raymond, Objecting Class Member 2705. Phalen, Ralph K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2706. Phelps, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 2707. Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2708. Phillips, Michelle, Plaintiff 2709. Phillis, Deaun, Objecting Class Member 2710. Pierce, Colin, Objecting Class Member 2711. Pierre, Alvin, Plaintiff 2712. Pillette, Mercedes, Plaintiff 2713. Pilipenko, Oleg, Objecting Class Member 2714. Pilon, Richard, Objecting Class Member 2715. Pino, Krista, Plaintiff 2716. Piper, Derek, Objecting Class Member 2717. Piper, Michael, Objecting Class Member 2718. Pippin, Jason, Plaintiff 2719. Pitarra, Anthony Sabastian, former Plaintiff 2720. Pitarra, Rita Joyce, former Plaintiff 2721. Pittman, Dutton, Kirby & Hellums, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2722. Pivotal Law Group, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2723. Pizzirusso, James J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2724. Placencia, III, Leo, Plaintiff 2725. Plant, Adam P., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-77

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 79 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2726. Plante, Lorraine, former Plaintiff 2727. Palnte, Stephen, Settlement Class Representative 2728. Platt, Christina, Plaintiff 2729. Platts, Diane, Plaintiff 2730. Pleasant, Thomas W., Plaintiff 2731. Plontus, Janet, Objecting Class Member 2732. Plumb, Peter, Objecting Class Member 2733. Poarch, Justin, Plaintiff 2734. Pobiner, Lori, Plaintiff 2735. Podalsky, Gregg, Settlement Class Representative 2736. Podolny, James Henry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2737. Poligan, Richard, Plaintiff 2738. Polischuk, Wesley K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2739. Polk, Adam E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2740. Pollack, David, Plaintiff 2741. Pollack, Janine L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2742. Polsinelli PC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2743. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2744. Pomerantz, James, Objecting Class Member 2745. Pomerantz, LLP -NY, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2746. Pomerantz, LLP -NY, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2747. Pomrehn, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 2748. Pontrelli, Paul Jay, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2749. Poole, Brandy, Plaintiff 2750. Porta, Megan, Objecting Class Member 2751. Porter, Charles Millard, Plaintiff 2752. Porter, Robin D., Plaintiff 2753. Porter, William R, Plaintiff 2754. Poskey, Judith, Objecting Class Member 2755. Post, Richard, Objecting Class Member 2756. Potter, Joey, Objecting Class Member 2757. Powell, Daniel, Plaintiff 2758. Powers, Cassandra, Plaintiff 2759. Powers, Douglas Ivan, Plaintiff 2760. Powers, Gloria Jean, Plaintiff

CIP-78

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 80 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2761. Powers, Rogers & Smith, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2762. Poynter, Scott E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2763. Praden, Michele, Objecting Class Member 2764. Prasad,Krishna, Objecting Class Member 2765. Prater, IV, Harlan Irby, counsel for Defendant(s) 2766. Pratt Clay, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2767. Pratt, Bradley W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2768. Prejean, Brett N.J., Plaintiff 2769. Prescott, Steven Robert, Plaintiff 2770. Preston, Debra, Objecting Class Member 2771. Preusch, Matthew J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2772. Price, Donna, Objecting Class Member 2773. Price, Lonny, Objecting Class Member 2774. Pryor, Jeffrey, Plaintiff 2775. Pryor, Jr., Anthony E., Plaintiff 2776. Przybylo, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 2777. Pugh, Michael, Plaintiff 2778. Pugliese, Joseph, Plaintiff 2779. Purnell-Reid, Chiaquitta, Plaintiff 2780. Putegnat, Kevin, Plaintiff 2781. Putegnat, Nydia, Plaintiff 2782. Quagliani, Natalie, Plaintiff 2783. Queenen, Barbara, Plaintiff 2784. Quick, Mark, Objecting Class Member 2785. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP-DC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2786. Quinn, Alison, Objecting Class Member 2787. Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2788. Quirk, Michael J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2789. Quirk, Michael J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2790. Ra, Laura, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2791. Rado, Andrei V., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2792. Rafael, Gunta, Objecting Class Member 2793. Rafco, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2794. Raffin, Sheena, Plaintiff

CIP-79

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 81 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2795. Ragatz, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 2796. Rager, Cathy, Objecting Class Member 2797. Rahenkamp, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 2798. Rainbolt, Kevin W., Plaintiff 2799. Raines, Bethanie, Objecting Class Member 2800. Raines Feldman, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2801. Rajkovich, Williams, Kilpatrick & True, PLLC, counsel for Defendant(s) 2802. Rajput, Sanjay, Settlement Class Representative 2803. Rak, Brian, Objecting Class Member 2804. Ralph K. Phalen, Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2805. Ramage, Shelley, Objecting Class Member 2806. Ramey, Horace C., Plaintiff 2807. Ramey, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 2808. Ramirez, Edith, counsel for Defendant(s) 2809. Ramirez, Jonathan, Plaintiff 2810. Ramsay, Mark, Plaintiff 2811. Ramirez, Michael, Objecting Class Member 2812. Ramirez, Nadine, Objecting Class Member 2813. Ramirez- Coleman, Rosa, Objecting Class Member 2814. Ramos, Edith, Objecting Class Member 2815. Ramos, Rosa, Objecting Class Member 2816. Randall, Garry, Plaintiff 2817. Rankin, Alexandria Patel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2818. Ranis, Susan, Objecting Class Member 2819. Rasmussen, Craig, Objecting Class Member 2820. Rausher, Mitchell, Objecting Class Member 2821. Raymond, Jeffery, Objecting Class Member 2822. Raynor, Joseph, Plaintiff 2823. Reams Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2824. Reams, Charles Austin, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2825. Rebeta, Michael, Objecting Class Member 2826. Reed, Claiborne, Plaintiff 2827. Reid Collins & Tsai, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2828. Reid, Kirkland E., counsel for Defendant(s) 2829. Reinert, Debbie, Plaintiff

CIP-80

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 82 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2830. Reinert, Randy, Plaintiff 2831. Reinhard, Brook, Plaintiff 2832. Reinhardt & Anderson, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2833. Reinhardt, Mark, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2834. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2835. Reisman, Keith, Plaintiff 2836. Ressetar, Nicholas, Plaintiff 2837. Reyes, Alberto, Plaintiff 2838. Reyes, Maribel X., Plaintiff 2839. Reyes, Ruth, Plaintiff 2840. Reynolds, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 2841. Reynoso, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 2842. Reznichek, Patricia Objecting Class Member, 2843. Rhine, Joel R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2844. Rhodes, Rebekah, Plaintiff 2845. Rhyne, Brenda, Objecting Class Member 2846. Rhyne, Hugh, Objecting Class Member 2847. Ribons, Michael, former Plaintiff 2848. Rice, Cynthia, Plaintiff 2849. Rice, Joseph F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2850. Rice-Wright, Anna, former Plaintiff 2851. Rich, Ashley R., Plaintiff 2852. Richards, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 2853. Richardson, Julie, Plaintiff 2854. Richardson, Marcus, Objecting Class Member 2855. Richland, Shae, Objecting Class Member 2856. Richman, Marc H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2857. Richmond, Bert, Objecting Class Member 2858. Richmond, Dan, Plaintiff 2859. Richmond, Kay, Objecting Class Member 2860. Richmond, Kimberly, Plaintiff 2861. Rickard, Peter, Objecting Class Member 2862. Rickard, Sarah L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2863. Rifkin, Ashley R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2864. Rimar, Gray, Objecting Class Member

CIP-81

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 83 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2865. Rinehimer, Jared Andrew, Counsel for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2866. Rios, Dawn, Objecting Class Member 2867. Ritenour, Keri, Objecting Class Member 2868. Ritner, Robert, Objecting Class Member 2869. Ritterbeck, Adam, Plaintiff 2870. Rivas, Deborah, former Plaintiff 2871. Rivas, Rosemary M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2872. Robbins Arroyo, LLP-CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2873. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP -FL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2874. Robbins Ross Alloy Belinfante Littlefield, LLC -Atl, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2875. Robbins, Brian J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2876. Robbins, Cynthia, Plaintiff 2877. Robello, Ronann Marie, Plaintiff 2878. Roberson, Cydni, Objecting Class Member 2879. Robert J. Wagoner Co., L.L.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2880. Roberts, Georgeanne, Plaintiff 2881. Robert, James, Objecting Class Member 2882. Roberts, Mollie Marcia, Plaintiff 2883. Roberts, Quentin A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2884. Roberts, Rose, Objecting Class Member 2885. Robin Frazer Clark, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2886. Robinson & Cole, counsel for Defendant(s) 2887. Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. -CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2888. Robinson, Daniel S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2889. Robinson, Eric, Objecting Class Member 2890. Robinson, William, Objecting Class Member 2891. Rocheleau, Jessica, Objecting Class Member 2892. Rockcliff, Mara, Objecting Class Member 2893. Rackliff, Mara, Objecting Class Member 2894. Roda, Joseph N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2895. Roddy, John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2896. Roddy, Kevin Peter, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2897. Rodgers, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 2898. Rodriguez, Nick, Plaintiff

CIP-82

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 84 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2899. Roehl, Robert, Plaintiff 2900. Rogers, Carrie, Objecting Class Member 2901. Rogers, Kevin B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2902. Rogers, L. Kristine, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2903. Rogers, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 2904. Rogers, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 2905. Rogers, Toli, Objecting Class Member 2906. Rogers, William, Objecting Class Member 2907. Rohrbeck, Cynthia, Objecting Class Member 2908. Romero, Ashley Marie, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2909. Romero, Geoffrey R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2910. Roofener, Chad, Plaintiff 2911. Roofener, Corree, Plaintiff 2912. Rooney, Peter, Objecting Class Member 2913. Rosemore, Evan T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2914. Rosenthal, James B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2915. Rosenthal, Richard R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2916. Roshto, Randall K., former Plaintiff 2917. Roskovensky, Vincent M., counsel for Defendant(s) 2918. Roth, Maragaret, Objecting Class Member 2919. Rothman, Justin, Plaintiff 2920. Rothman, Michael, Plaintiff 2921. Rotkis, Susan Mary, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2922. Rottman, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 2923. Rouco, Richard P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2924. Rowe, Roger D., counsel for Defendant(s) 2925. Roxanne Conlin & Associates, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2926. Rozenzweig, Allan, Plaintiff 2927. Rubio, Tanya Michelle, Plaintiff 2928. Rudman, Samuel H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2929. Rudo-Hutt, Brian, Objecting Class Member 2930. Rueter, Barbara, Objecting Class Member 2931. Ruf, Kevin F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2932. Ruff, Tenku, Plaintiff 2933. Ruiz, Aleida, Plaintiff 2934. Rumberger, Timothy Paul, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-83

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 85 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2935. Rupnow, Josh, Plaintiff 2936. Ruscitto, Albert, Plaintiff 2937. Rush, Niesha, Objecting Class Member 2938. Rusing Lopez & Lizardi PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2939. Rusing, Michael John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2940. Russ, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 2941. Russomanno & Borrello PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2942. Russomanno, Herman Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2943. Rutherford, Morgan, Plaintiff 2944. Ryan Bailey on behalf Frazier, Tawanda, Plaintiff 2945. Ryan, Elizabeth A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2946. Ryan, Ann, Objecting Class Member 2947. Rybak, Matthew, Plaintiff 2948. Saavedra, Jennifer, former Plaintiff 2949. Saavedra, Jennifer, Plaintiff 2950. Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2951. Sacks, Andrew B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2952. Safford, II, Melvin, Plaintiff 2953. Salinas, Alejandro, Plaintiff 2954. Sallis, Randal, Objecting Class Member 2955. Salonis, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 2956. Salsman, Carolyn, Objecting Class Member 2957. Salts, Amy, Objecting Class Member 2958. Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2959. Saltzman, Zachary, Objecting Class Member 2960. Samie, Christian, Objecting Class Member 2961. Samilow, Steven Frederick, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2962. Samini Scheinberg PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2963. Samini, Bobby, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2964. Samson, Nida, Plaintiff 2965. Samuelson, Patricia, former Plaintiff 2966. Sanchez, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 2967. Sanchez, Gustavo Carlo, Plaintiff 2968. Sancimino, Catherine, Objecting Class Member 2969. Sandberg, Angela, Objecting Class Member

CIP-84

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 86 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

2970. Sander, Laura, Plaintiff 2971. Sanders, Cicki, Objecting Class Member 2972. Sanders, Dawn, Objecting Class Member 2973. Sanders, Joe, Defendant 2974. Sands, David, Objecting Class Member 2975. Sanford Heisler Kimpel LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2976. Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2977. Santana, Alexandra, Plaintiff 2978. Santello, Lea, Plaintiff 2979. Santiago, Deborah, Objecting Class Member 2980. Santoli, Joseph R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2981. Santomauro, Rodd, Settlement Class Representative 2982. Santos, Erik Dos, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2983. Sapiro, David, Objecting Class Member 2984. Sardinha, Carol, Objecting Class Member 2985. Sarko, Lynn Lincoln, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2986. Sarnelli, Jennifer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2987. Sarraf Gentile LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2988. Sarraf, Ronen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2989. Saucier, Michael, Plaintiff 2990. Sauder, Joseph G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2991. Savell & Williams, counsel for Defendant(s) 2992. Saveri & Saveri, Inc. - SF CA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2993. Saveri, Richard Alexander, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2994. Savett, Sherrie R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2995. Sawaya, Rose, McClure & Wilhite, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 2996. Saxton, April, Objecting Class Member 2997. Scales, Stacy, Objecting Class Member 2998. Scarlett, Caleb, Objecting Class Member 2999. Schaber, Michael, Plaintiff 3000. Schaffer, Charles E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3001. Schatz, Michael, Objecting Class Member 3002. Scheffler, Troy, Objecting Class Member 3003. Schelkopf, Matthew D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3004. Scherer, Edward L., Plaintiff 3005. Sheriff, John, Objecting Class Member

CIP-85

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 87 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3006. Schifano, Maria, Plaintiff 3007. Schifano, Maria, Settlement Class Representative 3008. Schilke, Erik, Objecting Class Member 3009. Schlagle, Michael, Objecting Class Member 3010. Schlene, Eric, Objecting Class Member 3011. Schnabel, Bret, Objecting Class Member 3012. Schneider, Jon, Objecting Class Member 3013. Schneider, Tyler J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3014. Schneider, Tyler, Settlement Class Representative 3015. Schomburg, Susan, Objecting Class Member 3016. Schork, Erich Paul, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3017. Schrage, David, Objecting Class Member 3018. Schriber, Paul, Objecting Class Member 3019. Schroeder, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 3020. Schroeder, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 3021. Schroeder, Leigh, Objecting Class Member 3022. Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowec LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3023. Schubert, Noah M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3024. Schubert, Robert C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3025. Schumacher, Richard, Objecting Class Member 3026. Schumitsh, Jennifer C., Plaintiff 3027. Schur, Hong, Plaintiff 3028. Schur, W. Craig, Plaintiff 3029. Schwab, Judyann, Objecting Class Member 3030. Schwartz, Steven A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3031. Scott Cole & Associates, APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3032. Scott Cole & Associates, APC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3033. Scott, Anthony, Plaintiff 3034. Scott, Jens, Objecting Class Member 3035. Scott, Lawerence, Objecting Class Member 3036. Scott, III, Ralph Downing, counsel for Defendant(s) 3037. Scribner, John, Objecting Class Member 3038. Scripps, Kerry, Objecting Class Member 3039. Scroggins, Joanna, Objecting Class Member 3040. Scrogham, Ronald, Objecting Class Member

CIP-86

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 88 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3041. Scullion, Jennifer R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3042. Searless, Queen, Objecting Class Member 3043. Seaton, Calvin Objecting Class Member 3044. Seeger Weiss, LLP - NJ, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3045. Seeger, Christopher A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3046. Seely, Kevin A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3047. Segal, Scott S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3048. Segur, Anna, Objecting Class Member 3049. Seidenspinner, Jeff, Objecting Class Member 3050. Seiter, Jeff, Plaintiff 3051. Sekiya, Julianne, Plaintiff 3052. Selders, Derek, Plaintiff 3053. Semnar & Hartman, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3054. Semnar, Babak, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3055. Semsak, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 3056. Serafine, Roberta, Plaintiff 3057. Serino, Natasha N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3058. Seror, Shimon, Plaintiff 3059. Seshardri, Amita, Objecting Class Member 3060. Seymore, Angela, Plaintiff 3061. Seymore, Omar, Plaintiff 3062. Shaffner, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 3063. Shafran, Andrea, former Plaintiff 3064. Shafran, Barbara A., former Plaintiff 3065. Shafran, Jr., Stephen M., former Plaintiff 3066. Shank, William, Objecting Class Member 3067. Shanken, Richard, Plaintiff 3068. Shanken, Tonya, Plaintiff 3069. Shapiro, Ralph, Objecting Class Member 3070. Shapiro, Terry, Plaintiff 3071. Sharp, James, Settlement Class Representative 3072. Sharp, Kevin Hunter, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3073. Sharper, Ashaki, Objecting Class Member 3074. Sharpe, Miche', Plaintiff 3075. Sharpe, Shayna, Plaintiff 3076. Shaw, Amber Griffin, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-87

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 89 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3077. Shearer, Donald K., Plaintiff 3078. Sheehan, Christine, Objecting Class Member 3079. Sheena, Danny M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) William Bishop 3080. Sheets, Billy, Objecting Class Member 3081. Shell, Dori, Plaintiff 3082. Shelsby & Leoni, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3083. Shelsby, Gilbert F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3084. Shepard, Sharon, Plaintiff 3085. Shepard, Steven M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3086. Sheppe, Andrew, Plaintiff 3087. Sheridan, James, Objecting Class Member 3088. Sheridan, Shaun, Objecting Class Member 3089. Sherriff, Valerie Elizabeth, Plaintiff 3090. Shevitz, Richard E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3091. Shorf, Clifford, Objecting Class Member 3092. Shub, Jonathan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3093. Shulman Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3094. Shulman, Harry, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3095. Shultz, Wesley, Plaintiff 3096. Shunk, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 3097. Sibley, Patricia, Objecting Class Member 3098. Sides, Tracy, Objecting Class Member 3099. Sidney, Ametrius V., Plaintiff 3100. Siegel, Norman E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3101. Sievers, Dustin, Plaintiff Sigall, Herschel, Plaintiff 3102. Signal Interactive Media, LLC, Service provider 3103. Sikes, Steven B., Plaintiff 3104. Silander, Olli, Objecting Class Member 3105. Silverman, Jesse N., counsel for Plaintiff(s) Silvestre, Luisa, Plaintiff 3106. Simmons Hanly Conroy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3107. Simmons, II, John W., Plaintiff 3108. Simmons II, John, Settlement Class Representative 3109. Simmons, Candace, Objecting Class Member 3110. Simmons, Meghan, Plaintiff 3111. Simons, David, Objecting Class Member

CIP-88

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 90 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3112. Simons, Elizabeth M, Pro Se, Movant 3113. Simons, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 3114. Simons, Gregory A., Pro Se, Movant 3115. Simons, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 3116. Simons, Joshua D., Pro Se, Movant 3117. Simons Joshua, Objecting Class Member 3118. Simpson, Amanda, Plaintiff 3119. Sinclair, Alan, Objecting Class Member 3120. Singer, Debra, Objecting Class Member 3121. Sirer, Emin, Objecting Class Member 3122. Sirolly, Benjamin T., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3123. Sisk, Trina Marie, Plaintiff 3124. Sistek, Jeanne L., Plaintiff 3125. Skillma, Richard, Objecting Class Member 3126. Skye, Kaethe, Plaintiff 3127. Slade, Roger, Plaintiff 3128. Slater, Caleb, Objecting Class Member 3129. Slayton, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 3130. Slayton, Thomas, Objecting Class Member 3131. Slyne, Michael, Plaintiff 3132. Slyne, Patrick, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3133. Small, Ann, Objecting Class Member 3134. Smart, Valorie Anne, Plaintiff 3135. Smat, Robert, Objecting Class Member 3136. Smit, Christine, Objecting Class Member 3137. Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3138. Smith, Amie, Plaintiff 3139. Smith, Amy, Objecting Class Member 3140. Smith, Arnie, Settlement Class Representative 3141. Smith, Courtney D., Plaintiff 3142. Smith, Darell, Objecting Class Member 3143. Smith, Diana K., Plaintiff 3144. Smith, Donald, Objecting Class Member 3145. Smith, Ethan, Objecting Class Member 3146. Smith, Jack, Objecting Class Member 3147. Smith, J. Craig, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-89

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 91 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3148. Smith, Jacqueline, Objecting Class Member 3149. Smith, Jeremiah, Plaintiff 3150. Smith, Jimmy, Plaintiff 3151. Smith, Joshua, Plaintiff 3152. Smith, Josie Lou, Plaintiff 3153. Smith, LA' Sohn, Plaintiff 3154. Smith, Mary, Objecting Class Member 3155. Smith, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 3156. Smith, Michael Paul, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3157. Smith, Nathaniel, Objecting Class Member 3158. Smith, Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3159. Smith, Richard F., Defendant 3160. Smith, Robert, Objecting Class Member 3161. Smith, Robin, Plaintiff 3162. Smith, Samuel, Plaintiff 3163. Smith, Seth Edward, Plaintiff 3164. Smith, Shalene, Objecting Class Member 3165. Smith, Todd A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3166. Smith, Yvonne, Objecting Class Member 3167. Smith, Travis Quintin, Plaintiff 3168. Smith. Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3169. Smith-Norwood, Porsha, Plaintiff 3170. Smokowicz, Leslie, Objecting Class Member 3171. Snell & Wilmer, LLP, counsel for Defendant(s) 3172. Snell, Matthew, Plaintiff 3173. Snell, Rachel, Objecting Class Member 3174. Snell, Thomas Objecting Class Member 3175. Snyder, Jordan, Objecting Class Member 3176. Sobol, Michael W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3177. Sogomonyan, Akop, Plaintiff 3178. Sokol, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 3179. Solorio, Anna, Settlement Class Representative 3180. Solberg Stewart Miller & Johnson 3181. Solberg Stewart Miller, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3182. Solin, Lauren, Plaintiff 3183. Solomon, Glenn Allen, Plaintiff

CIP-90

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 92 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3184. Solorio, Anna, Plaintiff 3185. Sommers Schwartz, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3186. Son-ell, Karen, Objecting Class Member 3187. Soumilas, John, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3188. Southern Institute for Medical & Legal Affairs, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3189. Souza, Sharon, Plaintiff 3190. Spahn, Brian C., counsel for Defendant(s) 3191. Spalding, Mary, Objecting Class Member 3192. Spanos, Theodore G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3193. Sparling, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 3194. Spear, Gillian, Objecting Class Member 3195. Specht, Laurance, Objecting Class Member 3196. Spector, Brian F., Plaintiff 3197. Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3198. Spector, Brian F., Plaintiff 3199. Speed, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 3200. Spellman, Joe, Plaintiff 3201. Spencer, Andre, Plaintiff 3202. Spicer, Mike, Plaintiff 3203. Spicer, Richard, Plaintiff 3204. Spicher, Kristina, Objecting Class Member 3205. Spiegel, Lynda, Objecting Class Member 3206. Spiker, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 3207. Spiking, Ryan, Plaintiff 3208. Spivak, Shayna, Plaintiff 3209. Spositi, Melissa, Plaintiff 3210. Spositi, Michael, Plaintiff 3211. Sprecher, Taylor, Plaintiff 3212. Sprowles, Mary, Objecting Class Member 3213. Squitieri & Fearon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3214. Squitieri, Olimpio Lee, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3215. Srikanth, Kannan, Objecting Class Member 3216. Sroka, Scott, Plaintiff 3217. St. Clair, Kurtis, Plaintiff 3218. St. Luc, Reevney, Plaintiff

CIP-91

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 93 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3219. Stabell, Nancy, Plaintiff 3220. Stabenow, Justin, Plaintiff 3221. Stack, Brian J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3222. Stack, Fernandez & Harris, PA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3223. Stack, Steven, Objecting Class Member 3224. Staker, Megan, Plaintiff 3225. Stalpes, Justin P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3226. Standish, Vera, Plaintiff 3227. Stanfield, Tyler, Plaintiff 3228. Stanojevich, Nicolas Miguel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3229. Stansbury, Wade, Objecting Class Member 3230. Starbuck, Summer Nicole, Plaintiff 3231. Stark, Pamela, Objecting Class Member 3232. Starling, Mike, Objecting Class Member 3233. Starr, Danielle, Objecting Class Member 3234. Starr, Stephen, Objecting Class Member 3235. Stasek, Dawn, Objecting Class Member 3236. Stasiowski, Beth, Objecting Class Member 3237. Staudacher, Sandy, Objecting Class Member 3238. Staun, Mark R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3239. Steckler Gresham Cochran, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3240. Steckler, Bruce W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3241. Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3242. Steele, Amy, Objecting Class Member 3243. Steele, Emily, Objecting Class Member 3244. Steele, Michael, Objecting Class Member 3245. Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3246. Stein, Steven B., former Plaintiff 3247. Steinmetz, Eric L, Plaintiff 3248. Stephan, Howard, Plaintiff 3249. Stephen C. Maxwell PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3250. Stephens, Lynda, Objecting Class Member 3251. Stephenson, Samuel, Plaintiff 3252. Sternemann, Brian, Plaintiff 3253. Sternemann, Phyllis, Plaintiff

CIP-92

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 94 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3254. Steufen, David, Plaintiff 3255. Stevens, John, Objecting Class Member 3256. Stewart, Daphne, Plaintiff 3257. Stewart, II, Dale F., Plaintiff 3258. Stewart, Leanne S., Plaintiff 3259. Stewart, Michael G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3260. Stiles, Brijit, Plaintiff 3261. Stimac, Jr., Charles, Defendant 3262. Stocks, Tina Objecting Class Member 3263. Stoecker, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 3264. Stone & Magnanini LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3265. Stone, Davod S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3266. Stone, Jarrett, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3267. Stone, Patton, Kierce & Freeman, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3268. Stone, Roger, Objecting Class Member 3269. Stonebarger, Gilbert, Objecting Class Member 3270. Stonebraker, Steven, Plaintiff 3271. Stonebraker, Theresa, Plaintiff 3272. Stoner, Allison, Objecting Class Member 3273. Storch, Jenny, Plaintiff 3274. Storey, Sharon, Objecting Class Member 3275. Storie, Leon R., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3276. Stough, Tracey, Plaintiff 3277. Stranch, IV, James G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3278. Strauchman, Luke, Plaintiff 3279. Strauss, Joel B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3280. Strausser, Jonathan, Settlement Class Representative 3281. Streett Law Firm, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3282. Streett, Alex G., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3283. Streett, James A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3284. Streisfeld, Jonathan Marc, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3285. Strickland, Ursula, Objecting Class Member 3286. Stritmatter, Kessler, Whelan, Koehler, Moore and Kahler, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3287. Strobl-Ban, Heidi, Objecting Class Member

CIP-93

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 95 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3288. Strong, Rodney K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3289. Struse, Heidi, Objecting Class Member 3290. Strutz, Victoria Lynn, former Plaintiff 3291. Strychalski, Kim, Setllement Class Representative 3292. Stuart, Ludwig, Objecting Class Member 3293. Stubbs, Donald, Objecting Class Member 3294. Studer, Ryan Patrick, Plaintiff 3295. Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP -MO, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3296. Stull Stull & Brody, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3297. Sturges, James, Objecting Class Member 3298. Sturing, Sara Joy, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3299. Sucov, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 3300. Suderski, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 3301. Sullenger, D. Wes, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3302. Sullivan, Daniel P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3303. Sullivan, Robert B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3304. Sullivan, Sean, Objecting Class Member 3305. Sullivan, Thomas, Plaintiff 3306. Suminski, Richard A., Plaintiff 3307. Summer, Alexandra P., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3308. Summers, Ivy, Objecting Class Member 3309. Sumner, Phyllis Buchen, counsel for Defendant(s) 3310. Super, Marty, Plaintiff 3311. Susman Godfrey, LLP-TX, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3312. Susman, Stephen D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3313. Sussino, Donita, Objecting Class Member 3314. Sutkaytis, Cheryl, Plaintiff 3315. Sutkaytis, Steven, Plaintiff 3316. Sutton, Edward, Objecting Class Member 3317. Sutton, Mildred, Plaintiff 3318. Swan, Jack, Objecting Class Member 3319. Swann, Judith, Objecting Class Member 3320. Swetnam, Douglas Scott, Counsel for State of Indiana as Amicus Curiae 3321. Swick, Randall Adam, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3322. Swiftbird, Pete, Settlement Class Representative

CIP-94

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 96 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3323. Sypal, Christine, Objecting Class Member 3324. Syrowski, Michael J., Plaintiff 3325. Syverson, Erik Swen, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3326. Syverson, Lesowitz & Gebelin LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3327. Szekely, Elisabeta, Plaintiff 3328. Szum, John, Objecting Class Member 3329. Szymanski, Witold, Objecting Class Member 3330. Tabish, Gene, Plaintiff 3331. Tabish, Jan, Plaintiff 3332. Tada, Caralyn, Plaintiff 3333. Tadler Law LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3334. Tadler, Ariana J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3335. Tadros, Isaac, Plaintiff 3336. Taenzer, York, Plaintiff 3337. Tafas, Cheryl, Settlement Class Representative 3338. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP (Indianapolis), counsel for Defendant(s) 3339. Talero, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 3340. Talley, Curtis, Objecting Class Member 3341. Talsania, Sonali, Objecting Class Member 3342. Tama, Adam P., Plaintiff 3343. Tamburello, Christopher, Plaintiff 3344. Tan, Phail, Objecting Class Member 3345. Tanks, Christopher, Plaintiff 3346. Tanner, Rema, Objecting Class Member 3347. Tapp, Jason, Objecting Class Member 3348. Tarczy, Paul, Objecting Class Member 3349. Tate, Jeannie L., Plaintiff 3350. Tate, Jr., George W., Plaintiff 3351. Taubel, Eric S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3352. Tauraso, Michael, Objecting Class Member 3353. Taylor, AmySue, Plaintiff 3354. Taylor, Karen, Objecting Class Member 3355. Taylor Martino & Hedge, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3356. Taylor Martino Zarzaur, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3357. Taylor Martino, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-95

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 97 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3358. Taylor, AmySue, Plaintiff 3359. Taylor, Lauren Hoffman, former Plaintiff 3360. Taylor, Robin L., Plaintiff 3361. Taylor, Zachary L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3362. Tenant, Kristin, Objecting Class Member 3363. Tepfenhart, Jason, Plaintiff 3364. Tepfenhart, Nicholas, Plaintiff 3365. Teppler, Steven W., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3366. Terk, Daniel, Objecting Class Member 3367. Tesch, Lori, Objecting Class Member 3368. Teske, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3369. Teske, Vildan A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3370. Tharp, Tawnya, Objecting Class Member 3371. Thayer, Christopher L. counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3372. The Barnes Law Group, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3373. The Brualdi Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3374. The Chapel Law Group LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3375. The Coffman Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3376. The Cottle Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3377. The Dann Law Firm Co. LPA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3378. The Dann Law Firm Co. LPA, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3379. The Doss Firm, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3380. The Eggnatz Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3381. The Finley Firm, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3382. The Giatras Law Firm, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3383. The Hannon Law Firm, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3384. The Lanier Law Firm - TX, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3385. The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3386. The Law Offices of Steven E. Armstrong, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3387. The Malone Firm, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3388. The Miller Law Firm, P.C. 3389. The Segal Law Firm, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3390. Theodore, Julia, Objecting Class Member 3391. Theodore, Steven, Objecting Class Member 3392. Thibodeaux, Jeffery, Objecting Class Member

CIP-96

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 98 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3393. Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. Attorney at Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3394. Thomas, Andrew W., Plaintiff 3395. Thomas, Emily, Plaintiff 3396. Thomas, James, Objecting Class Member 3397. Thomas, Jennifer, Plaintiff 3398. Thomas, John, Objecting Class Member 3399. Thomas, Randall, Objecting Class Member 3400. Thomas, Rosalee B.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3401. Thomas, Sheena, Objecting Class Member 3402. Thomas, Tuesday, Objecting Class Member 3403. Thompson, Brandi, Objecting Class Member 3404. Thompson, Brian, Plaintiff 3405. Thompson, David H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3406. Thompson, Dwight, Plaintiff 3407. Thompson, Valorie, Objecting Class Member 3408. Thompson, Zachary, Objecting Class Member 3409. Thomson, Clint, Plaintiff 3410. Thrash, Jr., Hon. Thomas W., U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia 3411. Timmons, Katherine, Plaintiff 3412. Tinen, Chris, Plaintiff 3413. Tirelli, Linda, Plaintiff 3414. Tiscareno, Vanessa, Objecting Class Member 3415. Tischler, Eric, Plaintiff 3416. Tisdale, Sallie, Objecting Class Member 3417. Tittman, Carol, Objecting Class Member 3418. Tobias, Geny, Settlement Class Representative 3419. Toft, Kent, Plaintiff 3420. Toler, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 3421. Tomas, Patrick, Plaintiff 3422. Tomlin, Marilyn, Plaintiff 3423. Tomlin, Michael W., Plaintiff 3424. Tomlinson, Cole T., Plaintiff 3425. Tomlinson, Linda, Objecting Class Member

CIP-97

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 99 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3426. Toops, Lynn A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3427. TorHoerman Law LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3428. Toro, John Christopher, counsel for Defendant(s) 3429. Torrey, Barbara, Plaintiff 3430. Tortoreti, Phillip A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3431. Tosco, Chris, Plaintiff 3432. Toth, Ashley S., Plaintiff 3433. Toth, Cody, Plaintiff 3434. Toubman, Jay L., Plaintiff 3435. Tracey, David H., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3436. Tracy, Alison Suzanne, Plaintiff 3437. Tracy, Sharon, Plaintiff 3438. Trainer, Amanda, Objecting Class Member 3439. Treadwell, Frederick, Objecting Class Member 3440. Treat, Ryan, former Plaintiff 3441. Trevino, Barbara, Plaintiff 3442. Tribble, James Cameron CFP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3443. Tribble, James Cameron, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3444. Trice, Norlene, Objecting Class Member 3445. Trief and Olk, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3446. Trief, Ted, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3447. Trimborn, Georg, Objecting Class Member 3448. Trinka, Bryce, Objecting Class Member 3449. Triola, Devenn, Plaintiff 3450. Trobliger, Robert, Objecting Class Member 3451. Trogdon-Livingston, Loretta, Objecting Class Member 3452. Troutman Sanders, LLP-ATL, counsel for Defendant(s) 3453. Truesdell, Lydia, Objecting Class Member 3454. Trusted ID, Inc., Defendant 3455. Tuck, Marlo, Plaintiff 3456. Tucker, Ezra, Objecting Class Member 3457. Tucker, Michele, Objecting Class Member 3458. Tucker, Regina, Plaintiff 3459. Tuel, Patricia, Plaintiff 3460. Tundidor, Bert, Plaintiff 3461. Turner, David, Objecting Class Member

CIP-98

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 100 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3462. Turner, George, Objecting Class Member 3463. Turner, Nathan, Settlement Class Representative 3464. Turner, Trevor, Plaintiff 3465. Turnquist, Linda, Objecting Class Member 3466. Turok, Paul, Plaintiff 3467. Tuttle, Lori, Objecting Class Member 3468. Tuttle, Trinity, Objecting Class Member 3469. Tweeddale, Jennifer, Settlement Class Representative 3470. Twitchell, Elizabeth, former Plaintiff 3471. Twitchell, Nathan, Objecting Class Member 3472. Tyer, Rhea, Objecting Class Member 3473. Tyree, Lisa, Plaintiff 3474. Tyvand, James, Objecting Class Member 3475. Ugwumba, Chidozie, Objecting Class Member 3476. Uhl, Jenna, Objecting Class Member 3477. Ujke, Dave, Counsel for Red Cliff Bank of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians 3478. Ullman, Stacey J. P, Plaintiff 3479. Underwood, Guillermina, Objecting Class Member 3480. Unick, Lee, Objecting Class Member 3481. Unsdorfer, Gary, Plaintiff 3482. Unsdorfer, Jane, Plaintiff 3483. Uselmann, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 3484. Ussery, Gary, Objecting Class Member 3485. Utter, Alexander, Objecting Class Member 3486. Vahle, Barrett J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3487. Valdovinos, Marco, Objecting Class Member 3488. Valverde, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 3489. Van Fleet, Katie, Settlement Class Representative 3490. Vance, Robin, Objecting Class Member 3491. Vancs, Steven M. , Plaintiff 3492. Vanet, Judi, Objecting Class Member 3493. Vannett, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 3494. Vasiliadis, Tom, Plaintiff 3495. Vassil Gibson, MaryBeth, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3496. Vaughan, Anne, Objecting Class Member

CIP-99

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 101 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3497. Vaughan, Robin, Objecting Class Member 3498. Vaughn, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 3499. Vecchio, Vincent, Objecting Class Member 3500. Velasquez, Nicolas, Plaintiff 3501. Vera, Kara, Plaintiff 3502. Verrill Dana, LLP – MA, counsel for Defendant(s) 3503. Vice, Mario, Plaintiff 3504. Vickery, Abraham, Plaintiff 3505. Vickery, Erica, Plaintiff 3506. Vidmar, Joann H., Plaintiff 3507. Viggiano, David, Objecting Class Member 3508. Vilberg, Kaia, Plaintiff 3509. Villanueva, Haydee, Objecting Class Member 3510. Villaneal, Christian, Objecting Class Member 3511. Villines, Meredith, Plaintiff 3512. Vita, Nancy M., Plaintiff 3513. Vivanz, Michelle A., Plaintiff 3514. Viverito, Jaimie, Objecting Class Member 3515. Vogel, Kathleen, Objecting Class Member 3516. Von Borke, Brett E., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3517. Vonck, Marlice, Objecting Class Member 3518. VonWiller, Krista, Plaintiff 3519. Vore, Spencer, Objecting Class Member 3520. Vullings Law, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3521. Vullings, Brent F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3522. W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3523. Wade, James J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3524. Wade-Evans, Todd, Objecting Class Member 3525. Wagner, K. Scott, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3526. Wagner, Lauren, Objecting Class Member 3527. Wagner, Shaun, Objecting Class Member 3528. Wagner, Tristin, Objecting Class Member 3529. Wagoner, Robert J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3530. Waitman, Dr. Heather, Plaintiff 3531. Waits, Kattina, Objecting Class Member 3532. Wakeford, Cynthia, Objecting Class Member

CIP-100

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 102 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3533. Waldorf, Frank, Objecting Class Member 3534. Walker, Breset, Objecting Class Member 3535. Walker, Cipeo, Objecting Class Member 3536. Walker, Darryl W., Plaintiff 3537. Walker, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 3538. Walker, Nicole, Plaintiff 3539. Walker, Patricia A., Plaintiff 3540. Walker, Retha Pearl, Plaintiff 3541. Walker, Richard, Objecting Class Member 3542. Walker, Sheryl, Objecting Class Member 3543. Wall, Leavell, Objecting Class Member 3544. Wallis, Elizabeth, Objecting Class Member 3545. Walsh, Ann Marie, Plaintiff 3546. Walsh, Cassey, Objecting Class Member 3547. Walsh, Daniel, Plaintiff 3548. Walters, James, Plaintiff 3549. Walters, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 3550. Walthall, John, Objecting Class Member 3551. Walton, Deane, Objecting Class Member 3552. Walton, Jeffrey, Objecting Class Member 3553. Walton, Laurel, Objecting Class Member 3554. Wann, Kristi, Objecting Class Member 3555. Ward, Bristol, Plaintiff 3556. Ward, Craig, Plaintiff 3557. Ward, IV, Jasper D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3558. Ward, Jr., James L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3559. Ward, Ryan, Objecting Class Member 3560. Ward, Samuel M., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3561. Ward, Susan, Objecting Class Member 3562. Ward, Tameka, Objecting Class Member 3563. Ware, Christopher, Plaintiff 3564. Ware, Lewis, Objecting Class Member 3565. Ware, Oliver Jr., Plaintiff 3566. Warihay, Doreen, Objecting Class Member 3567. Warner, Jerome, Plaintiff 3568. Warren, Allanna, Plaintiff

CIP-101

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 103 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3569. Warren, Mary, Plaintiff 3570. Warren, Sharonda, Plaintiff 3571. Warren, Tessa Addie-Lee, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3572. Warren, Todd, Plaintiff 3573. Warshaw, Daniel, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3574. Washburn, John, Plaintiff 3575. Wasserman, Steven, Objecting Class Member 3576. Waszkelewicz, Paul, Plaintiff 3577. Watkins, David R., Objecting Class Member 3578. Watson, Brian, Objecting Class Member 3579. Watson, Jessica, Plaintiff 3580. Watson, Nicholas, Plaintiff 3581. Watts & Herring, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3582. Weatherby, Alexander Dewitt, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3583. Weatherly, Teri, Plaintiff 3584. Weaver, Lesley A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3585. Weaver, Nicholas, Objecting Class Member 3586. Weaver, Robert Moore, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3587. Weaver, Terra, Plaintiff 3588. Webb, Edward Adam, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3589. Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3590. Webster, Kimberly, Objecting Class Member 3591. Weedon, Jacquelyn, Objecting Class Member 3592. Weedon, Milton, Objecting Class Member 3593. Wehner, Karen, Objecting Class Member 3594. Weigel, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 3595. Weiler, Matthew S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3596. Weimann, RC, Objecting Class Member 3597. Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins Gunn & Dial, LLC-Atl, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3598. Weiner, Justin B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3599. Weiner, Melissa S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3600. Weinstein-Raun, Benjamin, Objecting Class Member 3601. Weintraub, David, Objecting Class Member 3602. Weist, Roger, Plaintiff 3603. Wells, Joshua D., counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-102

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 104 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3604. Wells, Matt, Objecting Class Member 3605. Weloth, David, Plaintiff 3606. Weltchek Mallahan and Weltchek, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3607. Weltchek, Nolan J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3608. Weltchek, Robert J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3609. Wendt, Alan, Objecting Class Member 3610. Wendt, Cheryl, Objecting Class Member 3611. Wertheimer, Rachel M., counsel for Defendant(s) 3612. West, Mikell, Objecting Class Member 3613. Westbrook, Barbara, Plaintiff 3614. Westerman Law Corp., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3615. Westerman, Jeff S., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3616. Westmoreland Hall PC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3617. Weston, John K., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3618. Wetzel, Joseph Richard, counsel for Defendant(s) 3619. Wetzel, Joseph Richard, counsel for Defendant(s) 3620. Whalen, Paul C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3621. Whipper, Leslie, Plaintiff 3622. Whitcomb, Kaitlin, Plaintiff 3623. White, Amanda Janaye, Plaintiff 3624. White, Amy, Objecting Class Member 3625. White, Carolyn, Plaintiff 3626. White, Connie, Objecting Class Member 3627. White, David, Plaintiff 3628. White, Denise, Objecting Class Member 3629. White, Kim, Objecting Class Member 3630. White, Martin L., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3631. Whiteman, Candace, Objecting Class Member 3632. Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP - DC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3633. Whitfield, Gregory, Objecting Class Member 3634. Whitfill, Jennifer, Plaintiff 3635. Whitlock, Kevin, Objecting Class Member 3636. Whittel & Melton, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3637. Whitten, Austin B., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3638. Whittington II, Richard, Settlement Class Representative 3639. Wickens, Robert, Plaintiff

CIP-103

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 105 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3640. Wiegand, Amy, Objecting Class Member 3641. Wier, Jennifer, Objecting Class Member 3642. Wiggins, Williams & Wiggins, counsel for Defendant(s) 3643. Wight, Peter, Objecting Class Member 3644. Wilcox, Samantha, Objecting Class Member 3645. Wilcoxon, Bruce, Objecting Class Member 3646. Wilcoxson, Jane, Objecting Class Member 3647. Wilens, Gary, Plaintiff 3648. Wilens, Jeffrey, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3649. Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3650. Wiley, Debbie, Plaintiff 3651. Wilhelm, Heidi, Objecting Class Member 3652. Wilhite, Erin, Plaintiff 3653. Wilhite, George W., Plaintiff 3654. Wilhite, Jay Travis, Plaintiff 3655. Wilhite, Todd R., Plaintiff 3656. Wilkerson-Klopfenstein, Sara E., Plaintiff 3657. Wilkins, Kirby, Plaintiff 3658. Williams, Alfredo, Plaintiff 3659. Williams, Carl, Plaintiff 3660. Williams, Cherie, Plaintiff 3661. Williams, Chris, Plaintiff 3662. Williams, Clathlyn, Objecting Class Member 3663. Williams, David, Objecting Class Member 3664. Williams, Elexis, Plaintiff 3665. Williams, III, David Reece, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3666. Williams, Jesse, Objecting Class Member 3667. Williams, John M., counsel for Defendant(s) 3668. Williams, Julia A., former Plaintiff 3669. Williams, Justin, Plaintiff 3670. Williams, Kellie, Plaintiff 3671. Williams, Lisa, Objecting Class Member 3672. Williams, Martin, Plaintiff 3673. Williams, Mary, Objecting Class Member 3674. Williams, Michael Jay, Plaintiff 3675. Williams, Patricia, counsel for Defendant(s)

CIP-104

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 106 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3676. Williams, Patricia, counsel for Defendant(s) 3677. Williams, Phillip, former Plaintiff 3678. Williams, Rhonda, Objecting Class Member 3679. Williams, Rodney, Plaintiff 3680. Williams, Thomas A., Plaintiff 3681. Williamson, Fontenot, Campbell & Whittington, LLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3682. Williamson, Ronald, Objecting Class Member 3683. Willis, Clare, Objecting Class Member 3684. Williams, Steven, Objecting Class Member 3685. Wilson, Christiana, Objecting Class Member 3686. Wilson, Cory Eugene, Plaintiff 3687. Wilson, Danial, Plaintiff 3688. Wilson, Elaine, Objecting Class Member 3689. Wilson, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 3690. Wilson, Scot D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3691. Wilson, Stanford Glenn, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3692. Wiltz, Juliette Ann, former Plaintiff 3693. Wimmer, Dean, Objecting Class Member 3694. Windish, Richard J., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3695. Wing, Joshua Iron, Plaintiff 3696. Wininger, Steven, Plaintiff 3697. Wink, Graham, Objecting Class Member 3698. Winn, III, Harlan F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3699. Wise, Jennifer, Plaintiff 3700. Wise, Rachel, Objecting Class Member 3701. Wisler, Dale, Objecting Class Member 3702. Wites & Kapetan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3703. Wites, Marc A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3704. Withers Bergman, LLP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3705. Witt, Brian, Objecting Class Member 3706. Wittenberg, Richard, Plaintiff 3707. Wittman, David, Objecting Class Member 3708. Wizig, Diane Sharon, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3709. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3710. Wolf, Martin Eugene, counsel for Plaintiff(s)

CIP-105

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 107 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3711. Wolf, Michael, Plaintiff 3712. Wolfe, Charles, Objecting Class Member 3713. Wolfe, John, Objecting Class Member 3714. Wolfe, Kim, Plaintiff 3715. Wolff, George, Plaintiff 3716. Wolff, Megan, Objecting Class Member 3717. Wolfson, Tina, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3718. Wolson, Joshua D., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3719. Womble, Franklin, Objecting Class Member 3720. Wong, Kenneth, Objecting Class Member 3721. Wong, Stephanie L., Plaintiff 3722. Wood, Cassey-Jo, Plaintiff 3723. Wood, David, Plaintiff 3724. Woods, Joshua, Plaintiff 3725. Woods, Samantha, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3726. Woods, Samantha, Plaintiff 3727. Woodson, Steve, Objecting Class Member 3728. Woodward, Susan, Objecting Class Member 3729. Worden, Robert, Objecting Class Member 3730. Worley, David James, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3731. Wright, Danita, Objecting Class Member 3732. Wright, James R., former Plaintiff 3733. Wright, Jonathan, Objecting Class Member 3734. Wright, Marshall Alan, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3735. Wright, Valencia, Plaintiff 3736. Wright, William L., Plaintiff 3737. Wussick, Nita, Objecting Class Member 3738. Wyatt, Mitchell, Plaintiff 3739. Wyche P.A., counsel for Defendant(s) 3740. Wyckoff, Rae, Plaintiff 3741. Wygal, Brenda Kay, Plaintiff 3742. Wygal, Edward, Plaintiff 3743. Wyly Rommel, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3744. Wyly, Jim, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3745. Wysocki, John, Objecting Class Member 3746. Yamamoto, Kyoko, Plaintiff

CIP-106

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 108 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3747. Yanchunis, John A. CFP, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3748. Yanchunis, John A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3749. Yantz, Matthew, Objecting Class Member 3750. Yearout Myers & Traylor, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3751. Yearout, J. Gusty, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3752. Yeast, Emily, Objecting Class Member 3753. Yetter, Nancy, Objecting Class Member 3754. Yip, Filip, Objecting Class Member 3755. Yoder, David H., Plaintiff 3756. Yoder, Joe, Plaintiff 3757. Yoeckel, Kenneth, Plaintiff 3758. Young, Bridgette, Plaintiff 3759. Young, Donald, Plaintiff 3760. Young, Kelly E., Plaintiff 3761. Young, Melissa, Objecting Class Member 3762. Youngstrom, Scott, Plaintiff 3763. Yu, Dennis, Objecting Class Member 3764. Yunker & Schneider, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3765. Yunker, Stephen F., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3766. Zabawar, Nicholas, Objecting Class Member 3767. Zadrozny, Sarah A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3768. Zadworski, Monica, Objecting Class Member 3769. Zager, Joseph, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3770. Zagerlaw, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3771. Zajac, Andrew, Objecting Class Member 3772. Zaletel, Susan, Plaintiff 3773. Zamora, Martin, Plaintiff 3774. Zamora, Victor, Plaintiff 3775. Zamoyta, Ruth, Objecting Class Member 3776. Zapata, Richard, Objecting Class Member 3777. Zarpas, Christopher, Plaintiff 3778. Zarzaur Law PA- FL, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3779. Zarzaur, Jr, Joseph A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3780. Zasada, Constance, Plaintiff 3781. Zasada, Theodore, Plaintiff 3782. Zaugg, Brooke, Plaintiff

CIP-107

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 109 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

3783. Zaugg, Jared, Plaintiff 3784. Zawieruszynski, Darlene, Objecting Class Member 3785. Zebrowski Law, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3786. Zebrowski, Paul Alphonsus, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3787. Zelakowski, Mark, Plaintiff 3788. Zeldes, Helen I., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3789. Zeleznick, Mark, Plaintiff 3790. Zeleznick, Nicole, Plaintiff 3791. Zeman, Amy Marie, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3792. Zende, Kurt, Plaintiff 3793. Zenonos, Leonidas, Objecting Class Member 3794. Zerbe, Rodney Mark, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3795. Zhou, Lily, Plaintiff 3796. Zielenski, Vincent, Objecting Class Member 3797. Zimberoff, Rafael, Objecting Class Member 3798. Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3799. Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3800. Zimmerman, Jr., Thomas A., counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3801. Zinser, Amy, Objecting Class Member 3802. Ziolkowski, Anthony, Objecting Class Member 3803. Zirker, Robeli, Objecting Class Member 3804. Zirpoli, Cadio, counsel for Plaintiff(s) 3805. Zolno, Sherene, Objecting Class Member 3806. Zorogastua, G. Gabriel, counsel for Defendant(s) 3807. Zorrilla, Edward, Objecting Class Member 3808. Zribi, Mary L., Plaintiff 3809. Zweig, Bernard J., Plaintiff 3810. Zweig, Marc, former Plaintiff 3811. Zyph-Hursh, Katherine, Objecting Class Member

CIP-108

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 110 of 196

Appeal Nos. 20-10249-RR, 20-10609, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, 20-11470, Shiyang Huang, et al. v. Brian Spector, et al.

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Theodore H. Frank Theodore H. Frank Melissa A. Holyoak HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Objector-Appellants Theodore H. Frank and David R. Watkins

CIP-109

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 111 of 196

Statement in Support of Oral Argument

As Cir. R. 28-1(c) permits, Appellants Theodore H. Frank and David R. Watkins (“Frank”) respectfully request that the Court hear oral argument in this case because it presents significant issues concerning class certification and settlement. These issues, regarding the requirements of Rule 23 and the scope of existing Eleventh Circuit precedent, are meritorious, and pit the district court’s decision against those of this and other Circuits. This appeal raises complex but recurring questions of civil procedure; their exploration at oral argument would aid this Court’s decisional process and benefit the judicial system. Frank’s firm has previously argued and won landmark appellate rulings improving the fairness of class-action settlement procedure and class certification. E.g., In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 777 Fed. Appx. 221 (9th Cir. 2019) (Rule 23(a)(4)); Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, 681 F.3d 170 (3d Cir.

2012) (same); In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2015); Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014); In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013); see also ,

When Cut Their Clients Out of the Deal, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 13, 2013 (calling Frank “[t]he leading critic of abusive class action settlements”). Though Frank is pro se here, he is an experienced appellate advocate and a member of the American Law Institute; he has

i

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 112 of 196

argued before the Supreme Court. A favorable resolution in this case would do much to protect absent class members and important principles of federalism.

ii

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 113 of 196

Table of Contents

Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosures ...... 1

Statement in Support of Oral Argument ...... i

Table of Contents ...... iii

Table of Citations ...... vi

Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction ...... xvi

Statement of the Issues ...... 1

Statement of the Case ...... 3

A. Equifax is hacked...... 3

B. 28 data-breach statute claims and 35 consumer- protection statute claims survive dismissal...... 4

C. The parties settle...... 6

D. Watkins and Frank object...... 6

E. Frank moves to strike Klonoff’s declarations...... 8

F. Court holds a fairness hearing...... 8

G. Plaintiffs provide a proposed opinion ex parte without notice; the district court issues a 122-page opinion several times longer than the oral opinion...... 10

H. Post-judgment proceedings...... 14

Standard of Review ...... 16

Summary of Argument ...... 17

Argument ...... 19

I. The district court erred as a matter of law in certifying the single settlement class where fundamental conflicts between subgroups of class members preclude adequate representation under Rule 23(a)(4)...... 19

iii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 114 of 196

A. Rule 23(a)(4) requires adequate representation to protect class members’ due process rights—with heightened scrutiny in the settlement context...... 20

B. Fundamental conflicts exist between the class and subgroups with materially valuable statutory-damages claims...... 21

1. The district court erred in distinguishing Literary Works and Amchem...... 26

2. The district court’s flawed comparison of the Georgia, D.C., and Utah statutes only underscores the need for separate representation...... 28

3. The district court’s holding wrongly limits the definition of Rule 23(a)(4) fundamental conflicts...... 32

4. The district court erred in finding that class members’ ability to opt out cures Rule 23(a)(4) conflicts...... 35

C. Separate subclassing and representation cannot be ignored to simplify negotiations...... 36

D. The district court’s finding that the “class as a whole” was better off without subclassing and independent counsel is independent legal error requiring reversal...... 43

E. The district court’s Rule 23(e)(2)(D) analysis was similar error...... 44

F. The district court contravened Amchem and Ortiz by using the purported fairness of the settlement to excuse the fundamental conflict...... 45

II. Reversal and reassignment is required for the independent reason that the district court failed to exercise “independent judgment.” ...... 46

A. This Court should presume that the district court uncritically adopted the 122-page opinion nearly verbatim from the proposed opinion...... 47

iv Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 115 of 196

B. The district court committed independent reversible error by abdicating its independent judgment and relying on the inadmissible Klonoff expert report for legal conclusions...... 49

C. Nearly verbatim adoption of a proposed opinion materially different from the court’s oral rulings in a fundamentally unfair process requires reversal and reassignment. The resulting errors also require vacating the appeal bond...... 50

Conclusion ...... 57

Addendum of Statutes and Rules ...... 59

Statement of Related Cases Under Circuit Rule 28-2.6 ...... 66

Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 28-1(m) ...... 67

Proof of Service ...... 68

v Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 116 of 196

Table of Citations Cases

*Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ...... 18, 21-24, 28, 33, 35-39, 41-46

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) ...... 46-47, 52-53, 55

Andreason v. Felsted, 137 P.3d 1 (Utah App. 2006) ...... 30

Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ...... xvi

In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir. 2015) ...... i

Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) ...... xvii

Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) ...... 49

BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996) ...... 17, 38

In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) ...... 18, 38

Bright v. Westmoreland County, 380 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2004) ...... 46-47, 52

Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., 817 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) ...... 17

*Chudasama v. Mazda Motors Corp., 23 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997) ...... 1-2, 18-19, 47, 50-52, 56-57

In re Colony Square Co., 819 F.2d 272 (11th Cir. 1987) ...... 52

vi Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 117 of 196

Commodores Entm’t Corp. v. McClary, 879 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir. 2018) ...... 49

*In re Community Bank of N. Va, 418 F.3d 277 (3rd Cir. 2005) ...... 19, 46-47, 50-51

Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) ...... 48

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981) ...... 41

Crawford v. Equifax Payment Services, Inc., 201 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2000) ...... 56

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...... 50

Dep’t of Labor v. McConnell, 828 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. 2019) ...... 28

Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) ...... xviii

Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, 681 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2012) ...... I, 24

Dickens v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 706 F. App’x 529 (11th Cir. 2017) ...... 35

Drayton v. Western Auto Supply Co., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28211 (11th Cir. 2002) ...... 39-40

In re Dry Max Pampers Litig., 724 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2013) ...... i

*Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996) ...... 19, 53

Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 586 U.S. – (2019)...... xvi

vii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 118 of 196

Freund v. Butterworth, 165 F.3d 839 (11th Cir. 1999) ...... 49

In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) ...... 35-36

Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2010) ...... 34

Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983) ...... 47, 51

In re Home Depot Inc., No. 20-10667 (11th Cir.) ...... 18

In re Horizon Healthcare Svcs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2017) ...... xvi

*Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) ...... 20-21, 36-37, 43

Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) ...... 16-17, 39, 42

*In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011) ...... 13-14, 23-28, 32, 45-46

Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2015) ...... 30-31

In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 777 Fed. Appx. 221 (9th Cir. 2019) ...... 7, 55

Lyons v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Salaried Employees Ret. Plan, 221 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000) ...... 34-35

In re Navigant Consulting, Inc., Sec. Litig., 275 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2001) ...... xviii

viii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 119 of 196

*Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) ...... 22-24, 26-27, 33, 35, 38-39, 44-46

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016) ...... 28

Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) ...... 55

Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020) ...... 55

Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112 (11th Cir. 1985) ...... 21, 42

Poertner v. Gillette Co., 618 F. App’x 624 (11th Cir. 2015) ...... 55

Redman v. RadioShack Corp., 768 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2014) ...... 36

Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) ...... xvi-xvii

Sacred Heart Health Sys. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., 601 F.3d 1159 (11th Cir. 2010) ...... 20, 39

Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225 (1991) ...... 17

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) ...... 30-31

Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2019) ...... 29

ix Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 120 of 196

Sikes v. Teleline, Inc., 281 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2002), overruled in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) ...... 48

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 578 U.S. – (2016)...... xvi-xvii

In re Footlong Mktg. Litig., 869 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2017) ...... i

In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75455, 2017 WL 2178306 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017) ...... 9, 12-13, 31, 45

In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., 892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) ...... 31

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Mobile Drilling Barge, 424 F.2d 684 (5th Cir. 1970) ...... 48

U.S. v. Greco, 938 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2019) ...... 48-49

U.S. v. N.Y.N.H.&H. R.R. Co., 355 U.S. 253 (1957) ...... 48

U.S. v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1989) ...... 51, 57

U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) ...... 41

Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2003) ...... 12, 22, 32-33, 35

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ...... 20

W. Morgan-E. Lawrence Water & Sewer Auth. v. 3M Co., 737 F. App’x 457 (11th Cir. 2018) ...... 13, 33-35, 45

x Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 121 of 196

Rules and Statutes

28 U.S.C. §1291 ...... xvii

28 U.S.C. §1331 ...... xvi

28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2) ...... xvi

Ala. Code §8-19-10(a) ...... 5

Alaska Stat. §45.48.080(b)(2) ...... 4

Alaska Stat. §45.50.531 ...... 5

Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-113 ...... 4

Cal. Civ. Code §1798.80 ...... 4

Cir. R. 28-1(c) ...... i

Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Canon 3A(4) ...... 48, 53, 62

Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-1-113(2) ...... 5

Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-1-716 ...... 4

6 Del. Code Ann. §12B-104...... 4

D.C. Code §28-3853(a) ...... 4

D.C. Code §§28-3904, et seq...... 7

D.C. Code §28-3905(k)(2) ...... 5, 63

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) ...... xvii

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) ...... xvii

Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) ...... xvii, 2, 15, 48-49, 53, 61

Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(1) ...... 49

xi Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 122 of 196

Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2)(C)...... 15

Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(3) ...... 16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ...... 1, 2, 16, 20, 31, 38-39, 42, 44-45, 59

*Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ...... 1, 3, 7, 11, 17, 19-25, 29, 32, 34-36, 39, 41-45, 55, 59

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ...... 36

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5) ...... 36, 59

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ...... 44-45, 59

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ...... 9, 59

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D) ...... 1, 3, 14, 17, 44-45, 59

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ...... xvii

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ...... 10

Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...... 8, 49, 60

Fed. R. Evid. 1101(b) ...... 50, 60

Fla. Stat. §501.211(2) ...... 4

Haw. Rev. Stat. §487N-3(b) ...... 4

Haw. Rev. Stat. §481A-3 ...... 4

815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a ...... 4

Ind. Code §24-5-0.5-4 ...... 5

Iowa Code §714.16(7) ...... 4

Iowa Code §714H.5(4) ...... 5

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-7a02(g) ...... 4

xii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 123 of 196

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §446.070 ...... 4

Ky. Rev. Stat. §367.220 ...... 4

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:3075 ...... 4

5 Me. Rev. Stat. §213 ...... 4

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 93A, §11 ...... 5

Md. Comm. Code §13-408 ...... 4

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §445.72(13) ...... 4

Miss. Code §75-24-11 ...... 4

Mont. Code Ann. §30-14-133 ...... 5

Mont. Code Ann. §30-14-133(1) ...... 6

Neb. Rev. Stat. §59-1609 ...... 5

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §358-A:10 ...... 5

N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §359-C:21(I) ...... 6

N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-19 ...... 5, 6

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §349(h) ...... 5

N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16 ...... 5, 6

N.D. Cent. Code §51-15-09 ...... 5, 6

N.D. Ga. Civ. Loc. R. 5.1(A)(1) ...... 10, 47, 64-65

N.D. Ga. Civ. Loc. R. 7.3 ...... 10, 47, 65

Ohio Rev. Code §1345.09(B) ...... 5

Ohio Rev. Code §4165.03 ...... 4

Or. Rev. Stat. §646.638(1) ...... 5, 6

xiii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 124 of 196

73 Pa. Cons. Stat. 201-9.2(a) ...... 5

P.R. Laws Ann. 10, §4055 ...... 4

R.I. Gen. Laws §6-13.1-5.2(a) ...... 5

R. Proc. U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litig. 2.1(e) ...... 57

S.C. Code Ann. § 39-1-90 (G)(1) ...... 4

S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-140(a) ...... 5

S.D. Codified Laws §37-24-31 ...... 4

Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-109(a)(3) ...... 5

Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-2104(d) ...... 6

U.S. Const., art. III ...... xvi

Utah Code §§13-11-1, et seq...... 7

Utah Code §13-11-19 ...... 29, 63

Utah Code §13-11-19(2) ...... 5

V.I. Code tit. 12A, §108(b) ...... 5

V.I. Code tit. 12A, §331 ...... 5

V.I. Code tit. 14 §2211 ...... 4

Va. Code. Ann. §18.2-186.6(I) ...... 5

Va. Code Ann. §59.1-204(A) ...... 5

Wash. Rev. Code §19.255.010(13) ...... 4

W. Va. Code §46A-6-106(a)...... 5

Wis. Stat. §134.98(4) ...... 4

Wis. Stat. §100.18(11)(b)(2) ...... 4

xiv Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 125 of 196

Wyo. Stat. Ann. §40-12-502(f) ...... 4

Other Authorities

Federal Judicial Center, Manual Complex Litigation §21.132 ...... 39

Federal Judicial Center, Manual Complex Litigation §21.643 ...... 43, 54

Federal Rules Committee, Notes of Advisory Committee to 2018 Amendments to Rule 23 ...... 44

Liptak, Adam, When Lawyers Cut Their Clients Out of the Deal, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 13, 2013 ...... i

xv Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 126 of 196

Statement of Subject Matter and Appellate Jurisdiction

The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2) because plaintiffs’ consolidated class-action complaint alleges claims that exceed $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, there are over 100 members in each of the proposed classes, and defendant Equifax Inc. is a citizen of a State different from that of at least one class member.

Doc957 at 4; Doc374 at 21. For example, named plaintiff Thomas W. Hannon is an Arizona citizen, while defendant Equifax Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. Doc957 at 4;

Doc374 at 25, 86. The district court also had federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because the complaint alleges a violation of federal law. Doc957 at 4; Doc374 at 21.

The district court did not make explicit findings under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 578 U.S. – (2016), that there was an Article III case or controversy. Cf. Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 586 U.S. – (2019).

But complaints over data breaches like the one in this case likely satisfy Article III standards because the imminent risk of identity theft and the cost of mitigation of that risk is a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact when the stolen data includes the entire social security number. Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 625-29 (D.C. Cir. 2017); In re Horizon Healthcare Svcs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 846 F.3d 625, 638-41 (3d Cir.

2017); see also Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688, 692-

xvi Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 127 of 196

94 (7th Cir. 2015) (pre-Spokeo); compare Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 273-76 (4th Cir. 2017) (last four digits of social security number).

This court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. The district court issued final judgment under Rule 54(b) on January 13, 2020, and modified its final approval order under Rule 59 on March 17,

2020. Doc957; Doc1029. Objectors Theodore H. Frank and David R. Watkins filed a notice of appeal on February 10, 2020, and amended it March 30, 2020. Doc977; Doc1041. These notices of appeal are timely under FRAP 4(a)(1)(A) and FRAP 4(a)(4)(B)(i). The district court issued additional collateral orders on an appeal bond and FRAP Rule 10(e) motions on May 11, May 15, and

August 7, 2020. Doc1094; Doc1106; Doc1153. Watkins and Frank filed timely amended notices of appeal to include these collateral orders on May 29 and August 14, 2020. Doc1126; Doc1154. These collateral orders are each final decisions, providing 28 U.S.C. §1291 appellate jurisdiction. Watkins and Frank timely objected to the settlement through counsel on November 19, 2019. Doc876 (objection); Doc742 at 15 (order setting objection deadline of November 19); Doc926-1 at 9, 20 (declaration of settlement administrator acknowledging that Frank and Watkins filed timely, valid objections). Watkins and Frank appeared at the fairness hearing through counsel. Doc943 at 2, 76. As unnamed class members who timely objected to approval of the settlement and appeared at the fairness hearing under Rule 23(e), Watkins and Frank have standing to

xvii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 128 of 196

appeal without formally intervening as parties. Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002).

Watkins and Frank are each members of the class, and filed claims under the settlement claims process. Doc876-1 at ¶5; Doc876-2 at ¶5. They are thus bound by and aggrieved by the final order and judgment

(Doc957 at ¶¶18-19), and have standing to appeal. E.g., In re Navigant Consulting, Inc., Sec. Litig., 275 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2001) (Easterbrook, J.).

xviii Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 129 of 196

Statement of the Issues

1. Supreme Court precedent requires separate representation under Rule 23(a)(4) where subgroups of class members have fundamental intra-class conflicts because they have materially different claims. Did the district court err as a matter of law when it certified a single nationwide settlement class (and approved a settlement notwithstanding Rule 23(e)(2)(D)) with uniform relief, though many class members have materially different causes of actions with materially different legal remedies, such as state statutory-damages claims that survived a motion to dismiss? (Raised at Doc876 at 4-12; ruled on at Doc1029 at 31-32 and Doc943 at 121.) 2. Did the district court's class-certification decision impermissibly rely upon inadmissible expert evidence and class counsel’s proposed opinion instead of providing the scrutiny and independent judgment required by Rule 23 and the Supreme Court? (Raised at Doc909; ruled on at Doc1029 at 115-119 and Doc943 at

116-117.) 3. In Chudasama v. Mazda Motors Corp., this Court reassigned a case on remand because the court’s “delegating the task of drafting sensitive, dispositive orders to plaintiffs’ counsel, and then uncritically adopting the proposed orders nearly verbatim, would belie the

1

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 130 of 196

appearance of justice to the average observer.” 123 F.3d 1353, 1373 (11th Cir. 1997). Here, the district court adopted virtually verbatim an ex parte proposed opinion that was materially different from and tens of thousands of words longer than the court’s largely conclusory oral opinion, without giving parties an opportunity to review the ex parte proposed opinion and excluding it from the record. (a) Should this Court reverse and reassign the case on remand? (Raised on appeal for first time.)

(b) In the alternative, did the district court err in withholding the ex parte communication from the record, and should the Court order supplementation of the record under FRAP 10(e) and additional briefing on the complete record? (Raised under FRAP 10(e) at Doc961 and Doc1134; ruled on at Doc1084, Doc1106, and Doc1153.)

4. Should the district court’s order imposing an appeal bond on Frank and Watkins, premised on the clearly erroneous finding that they were extortionists, be vacated?

(Raised at Doc1057 and Doc1057-2; ruled on at Doc1094.)

2

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 131 of 196

Statement of the Case

The consolidated complaint alleged 99 causes of action on behalf of a nationwide class and 55 subclasses, but the settlement-only certification joined all class members into a single settlement class with uniform relief. Frank and Watkins objected that Plaintiffs’ complaint was correct that at least some subclassing was required because there are fundamental conflicts between class members from states with valuable statutory-damages claims and other class members from states without any additional legal remedies, that Rule 23(a)(4) requires subclassing with separate legal representation for the class members with these separate legal remedies, and that Rule 23(e)(2)(D) requires a settlement that reflects the stronger claims of such class members. They appeal the district court’s class certification and approval of a settlement that zeroed out these statutory-damages claims, and seek reassignment on remand.

A. Equifax is hacked.

This century, there have been numerous data breaches exposing private information about millions of consumers and businesses. Doc374 at 101. In response, dozens of states have passed statutes bolstering consumer rights of recovery for data breaches or failures to timely disclose data breaches, some including statutory damages. See generally Doc374 at 199-553.

The Equifax defendants collect and maintain data on millions of Americans and sell that data as credit reports. Doc374 at 96. From May

3

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 132 of 196

to July 2017, Equifax suffered a data breach accessing the sensitive personal information of 147.9 million American consumers. Id. at 123.

Equifax learned of the breach in July 2017, but did not publicly announce it until September 7, 2017. Id. at 135. Class-action litigation followed, consolidated in a multidistrict litigation. Id. at 20.

B. 28 data-breach statute claims and 35 consumer-protection statute claims survive dismissal. The consolidated complaint alleged 99 counts on behalf of a national class, two national subclasses and 53 state subclasses. Doc374. Equifax moved to dismiss, and the district court dismissed 30 counts. Doc540. The surviving counts included: (1) negligence claims for a nationwide class, governed by Georgia law (id. at 29-43); (2) unjust enrichment claims for “Contract Plaintiffs”—those who alleged they formed a contract with Equifax (id. at 49); (3) data-breach claims from 28 jurisdictions, compare

Doc374 with Doc540 at 63-76; and (4) consumer-protection statutes from 35 jurisdictions (id.). Of the surviving state statutory claims, 30 statutes permit (and plaintiffs sought) recovery of actual damages.1

1 Doc374 (Counts 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32-34, 36, 38, 40- 42, 44, 46, 50, 54, 73, 78, 80, 82, 88, 91, 93, 96-98); Alaska Stat. §45.48.080(b)(2); Ark. Code Ann. §4-88-113; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.80; Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-1-716; 6 Del. Code Ann. §12B-104; D.C. Code §28- 3853(a); Fla. Stat. §501.211(2); Haw. Rev. Stat. §487N-3(b); Haw. Rev. Stat. §481A-3; 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a; Iowa Code §714.16(7); Kan.

4

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 133 of 196

Plaintiffs allege Equifax failed “to implement and maintain reasonable security and privacy measures” under 17 statutes that provide statutory damages2 and nine statutes that provide treble damages.3

Stat. Ann. § 50-7a02(g); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §446.070; Ky. Rev. Stat. §367.220; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:3075; 5 Me. Rev. Stat. §213; Md. Comm. Code §13-408; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §445.72(13); Miss. Code §75-24- 11; Ohio Rev. Code §4165.03; P.R. Laws Ann. 10, §4055; S.C. Code Ann. § 39-1-90 (G)(1); S.D. Codified Laws §37-24-31; V.I. Code tit. 14 §2211; Va. Code. Ann. §18.2-186.6(I); Wash. Rev. Code §19.255.010(13); Wis. Stat. §134.98(4); Wis. Stat. §100.18(11)(b)(2); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §40-12- 502(f).

2 Doc374 (Counts 10, 12, 19, 24, 35, 57-58, 62, 67, 72, 76-77, 79, 86, 90, 92, 95); Ala. Code §8-19-10(a); Alaska Stat. §45.50.531; Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-1-113(2); D.C. Code §28-3905(k)(2); Ind. Code §24-5-0.5-4; Mont. Code Ann. §30-14-133; Neb. Rev. Stat. §59-1609; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §358-A:10; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §349(h); Ohio Rev. Code §1345.09(B); Or. Rev. Stat. §646.638(1); 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. 201-9.2(a); R.I. Gen. Laws §6- 13.1-5.2(a); Utah Code §13-11-19(2); V.I. Code tit. 12A, §108(b); Va. Code Ann. §59.1-204(A); W. Va. Code §46A-6-106(a).

3 Doc374 (Counts 37, 49, 64, 69, 71, 81, 84, 87, 89); Iowa Code §714H.5(4); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 93A, §11; N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8- 19; N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16; N.D. Cent. Code §51-15-09; S.C. Code Ann. §39-5-140(a); Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-109(a)(3); V.I. Code tit. 12A, §331.

5

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 134 of 196

Plaintiffs also allege that Equifax failed to disclose the data breach in a timely and accurate manner under two statutes that provide statutory damages4 and five statutes that provide treble damages.5

C. The parties settle. Although the complaint proposed 55 subclasses, the settlement was solely on behalf of a nationwide class, treating citizens of states with no statutory-damages claims identically to citizens of states with statutory- damages claims. Doc739-2 at 10. What is relevant to this appeal is that, notwithstanding these differences, the settlement relief consisted of monetary and injunctive relief available to all class members uniformly. Id. at 12-23.

D. Watkins and Frank object. Theodore Frank and David Watkins (together “Frank”) objected to the settlement and fee request. Doc876.

Frank is the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness (“CCAF”), now part of the non-profit Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. CCAF has won dozens of objections, national acclaim, and more than

4 Doc374 (Counts 56, 75); Mont. Code Ann. §30-14-133(1); Or. Rev. Stat. §646.638(1).

5 Doc374 (Counts 61, 63, 68, 70, 80, 83); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §359-C:21(I); N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-19; N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-16; N.D. Cent. Code §51-15-09; Tenn. Code Ann. §47-18-2104(d).

6

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 135 of 196

$200 million for class members. Doc876-1 at 6-8. Among CCAF’s wins is In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litig., 777 Fed. Appx. 221 (9th Cir.

2019), a successful appeal of a denial of a Rule 23(a)(4) objection similar to the one brought here; on remand, the previously-disfavored subclass was allocated an additional $10 million of the settlement fund. Doc1057-

2 at 11. Frank was represented by CCAF attorney Melissa Holyoak, who will be appointed Utah Solicitor General next week. Frank is a class member who was a citizen of the District of

Columbia at the time of the data breach. Doc876-1 at 4. D.C. provides for $1,500 in statutory damages to citizens victimized by data breaches. Doc374 at 270 (requesting $1,500 under D.C. Code §§28-3904, et seq.).

Watkins is a class member who was a citizen of Utah at the time of the data breach. Doc876-2 at 4. Utah provides for $2,000 in statutory damages to citizens victimized by data breaches. Doc374 at 517

(requesting $2,000 under Utah Code §§13-11-1, et seq.). Frank objected that the settlement treated the statutory-damages claims of D.C., Utah, and other states as worthless, and that the lack of subclassing and separate representation meant that class counsel failed to adequately represent the class members with statutory damages claims. Doc876 at 4-12.

Frank’s Objection also mirrored Senator Elizabeth Warren’s criticisms of “the flaws in the FTC [sic] settlement that first resulted in misleading consumers about their potential award, and then added

7

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 136 of 196

complicated new steps that appear to be clearly designed to weed out deserving claimants.” Doc1057-2 at 21; Doc876 at 16-17 (also quoting

Doc1057-2 at 16-18 (New York Times)).

E. Frank moves to strike Klonoff’s declarations. The court limited plaintiffs to 75 pages of responses to objections.

Doc892. Class counsel submitted a 72-page brief written by Robert Klonoff making legal arguments about objections, class certification, and other legal issues. Doc900-2. Frank moved to strike the expert declaration as inappropriate under FRE 702 and as a violation of the district court’s order setting page limits. Doc909-1.

F. Court holds a fairness hearing.

The evening before the December 19 fairness hearing, class counsel filed hundreds of pages of declarations and exhibits making a variety of accusations against a variety of objectors. Doc939-1 through Doc939-10.

At the fairness hearing, Frank asked to strike the belated filings, or for an opportunity to respond in writing if the court was going to consider them. Doc943 at 79-80.

At the fairness hearing, the court heard from objectors without asking Frank’s counsel a single question. Id. at 76-80. After objectors spoke, class counsel announced for the first time, without notice, that they were seeking a ruling from the district court that “serial objectors” were objecting for “improper purposes,” which is

8

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 137 of 196

“why we filed the declaration last night.” Id. at 86-88. Class counsel then made a variety of false allegations against Frank. Compare id. at 90-95 with Doc1057-2. (Class counsel’s timely written response to objections did accuse several other objectors of being “serial objectors” engaging in extortion, but did not assert Frank was a “serial objector” until the fairness hearing. Doc902 at 40-42.) Frank’s counsel was not given another chance to speak, and the court refused requests from objectors to respond. Doc943 at 113.

While the district court found that the objections were “without merit” and overruled them, the district court made no specific factual findings at the fairness hearing about Frank or his counsel, made no findings of “improper purpose” for any of the objectors, and made no findings that anyone was a “serial objector.” Id. at 113-21. The court’s discussion of its reasons for rejecting objections to settlement approval took up six pages of the transcript and were mostly conclusory. Id. at 116-21. The court concluded that the objections “did not take into consideration the best interest of the Class itself.” Id. at 117.

The court found that under Rule 23(e)(2), “the proposal treats Class members equitably relative to each other.” Id. at 119. The court rejected Frank’s subclassing arguments, finding:

It's highly unlikely that any individuals would have benefited in any way from state statutory remedies that might be available, and if they thought they would, they could opt out. So for the same reasons given in Target

9

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 138 of 196

and others, I don’t think that is a valid objection to the proposed settlement.

Id. at 121. The district court’s oral opinion did not acknowledge Frank’s motion to strike the Klonoff expert report, stating it found Klonoff’s report “meritorious and appropriate.” Id. at 116. It then repeatedly cited Klonoff in rejecting objections. Id. at 116-17.

G. Plaintiffs provide a proposed opinion ex parte without notice; the district court issues a 122-page opinion several times longer than the oral opinion. The Court directed class counsel to “summarize[] the Court’s findings” in a written order. Doc945; Doc943 at 122-24. N.D. Ga. Civ. Loc.

R. 5.1(A)(1) and 7.3 requires all papers, including any proposed order, to be filed on the docket; and copies of proposed orders to be provided to parties. Class counsel later admitted it had submitted the proposed opinion to the court without putting it on the docket. Doc971 at 2-3. On January 13, 2020, without any notice or opportunity for the objectors to review the proposed opinion, the Court entered a 122-page order granting final approval. Doc956.6

6 Another objector, West, moved for Rule 59 reconsideration to strike a false statement about one of his attorneys. Doc969. The court granted the motion and issued an amended opinion that struck a single sentence. Doc1027; Doc1029.

10

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 139 of 196

The issued opinion was tens of thousands of words longer than the court’s often-conclusory oral ruling of under 2000 words. Id. It repeated class counsel’s false claims about Frank that had been made for the first time at the fairness hearing that Frank had no notice of, no opportunity to rebut, and no reason to believe would be in the opinion once they were omitted from the oral ruling. Id. From those claims came findings that Frank was a “serial objector” who objected “merely to benefit the objector or attorney” and a variety of other criticisms. Doc1029 at 110, 113-14.

The oral opinion did not address Frank’s motion to strike Klonoff’s expert report, but the written opinion denied it. Id. at 115-19. Though the court repeatedly relied upon Klonoff’s expert report at the fairness hearing, the written opinion stated “the Court’s decisions regarding the objections are not dependent upon [Klonoff’s] declaration.” Id. at 38-39. The opinion rejected Frank’s Rule 23(a)(4) arguments for several reasons. First, the court held that creating subclasses was not in the “interests of the entire class” because “numerous subclasses represented by competing teams of lawyers would have decreased the overall leverage of the class in settlement discussions and rendered productive negotiations difficult if not impossible.” Doc1029 at 54. The court held that additional subclasses would have made “the litigation process, particularly discovery and trial, much harder to manage and caused needless duplication of effort, inefficiency, and jury confusion.” Id. at 54-55.

11

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 140 of 196

The court found that Frank’s approach “would require at least 34 separate teams of lawyers” which require a “time consuming” appointment process and “duplication of effort.” Doc1029 at 55 n.26. The court reasoned that Frank argued for separate counsel for “each jurisdiction with statutory claims.” Id. (citing the fairness hearing at 78-79). At the fairness hearing, however, counsel for Frank argued that “those statutory claims that survived the motion to dismiss here, they deserve independent counsel to represent them at the negotiating table” and that “an experienced mediator is not going to solve the problem with subgroups with conflicting claims.” Doc943 at 78-79. Frank did not argue that each jurisdiction required separate counsel.

The district court held that there was no fundamental conflict under Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003) because “[n]o class members were made better off by the data breach such that their interests in the outcome of the litigation are adverse to other class members” and because “all class members benefit from the proposed settlement, while none are harmed by it.” Doc1029 at 55. The court further held that Frank did not “demonstrate[] how separate representation for state-specific subclasses would benefit anyone, let alone the class as a whole, or that the state statutes as a practical matter provide any class members with a substantial remedy under the facts presented.” Id. at 59. The district court quoted In re

12

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 141 of 196

Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75455, *20, 2017 WL 2178306, at *6 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017), that the objector’s intraclass conflict argument “ignores the substantial barriers to any individual class member actually recovering statutory damages” which instead “demonstrates the cohesiveness of the class and the excellent result.” Id. at 59-60. The district court distinguished W. Morgan-E. Lawrence Water & Sewer Auth. v. 3M Co., 737 F. App’x 457 (11th Cir. 2018). It argued that

“[b]ecause the water authority had an interest in maximizing the injunctive relief obtained from the alleged polluters while minimizing the value of (if not undermining entirely) consumers’ claims for compensatory damages, a fundamental intra-class conflict plainly existed.” Doc1029 at 60-61. The district court concluded: “No such fundamental conflict exists here.” Id. at 61.

The district court also distinguished In re Literary Works in Elec. Databases Copyright Litig., 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011). The court reasoned that the settlement there “‘sold out’ one category of claims.”

Doc1029 at 61. The court found that the Literary Works claims were “different in kind given the statutory scheme under which they arose” because Category A provided statutory penalties while Category B had actual damages. Id. at 61-62. The district court distinguished that this settlement was “carefully calibrated” to provide all class members with

13

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 142 of 196

benefits. Id. at 62. (And for that reason, the settlement also satisfied Rule 23(e)(2)(D). Id. at 62 n.30.)

The district court further reasoned that unlike Literary Works, the “same common law claim for negligence … binds the interests of all class members” and “and overcomes any theoretical differences that arise from potential state statutory remedies.” Id. at 62-63. The court doubted that plaintiffs could prove liability under the state statutes including that Utah’s statute requires “a ‘loss’ and may not even be available in a class action.” Id. at 63. The court did not discuss the D.C. statute. The court found that the “implication” that recovery would be more than a trial award had no merit because the settlement was “at the high end of the range of likely recoveries.” Id. at 63. Finally, the court reasoned that Frank does “not identify any authority holding that a class settlement cannot release individual claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence that are not held by all class members.” Id. at 64. Frank never argued as much.

H. Post-judgment proceedings.

Frank timely appealed the final judgment and the amended opinion. Doc977; Doc1041. Seven weeks after Frank’s notice of appeal, plaintiffs moved for a punitive $40,000 appeal bond against Frank and

Watkins based on the district court’s putative finding of Frank’s status as a “serial objector” and extortionist; Frank opposed, noting that the

14

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 143 of 196

extortionist holding was false. Doc1040-1 at 8; Doc1057; Doc1057-2 at 12-13. The court granted an appeal bond of $4,000 against Frank and

Watkins based on its earlier extortionist finding without acknowledging or addressing Frank’s rebuttal. Doc1094 at 7-10. On January 15, Frank moved to correct the record under

FRAP 10(e) to include the proposed opinion submitted to the court. Doc961. The motion was unopposed, though plaintiffs hinted that the court could deny the motion. Doc971 at 4; Doc974. When the district court appeared to deny all pending motions (Doc1029 at 122), Frank moved in this Court on April 20 and on May 19 for relief under FRAP 10(e)(2)(C), which the Court ultimately denied on June 8 because plaintiffs’ opposition showed that the omission was not “inadvertent” as that particular subsection requires. The district court, meanwhile, granted the unopposed FRAP 10(e) motion on May 7. Doc1084. However, instead of complying, on May 11, plaintiffs moved the district court for a “clarification” of the order. Doc1093 at 5. The district court treated this request as a motion for reconsideration of its grant of the unopposed order, and reversed itself on the grounds that this Court’s May 7 ruling on Frank’s motion showed the ex parte communication was not material to the appeal. Doc1106.

On June 9, Frank moved the district court again for Rule 10(e) disclosure, pointing out that its premise for denying relief directly contradicted what the Eleventh Circuit ruled June 8. Doc1134-1 at 4-5.

15

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 144 of 196

Plaintiffs opposed (Doc1148), and the court denied Frank’s motion August 7, because “the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court” and accusing Frank, without basis, of acting to “obstruct and delay.” Doc1153. Frank timely appealed these orders and the bond order. Doc1126;

Doc1154. Frank filed a time-sensitive motion for FRAP 10(e)(3) relief in this Court August 14 so he could include the still-undisclosed proposed order in this September 4 brief. Appellees opposed after 11 p.m. on August 24, with plaintiffs arguing that the district court could legally copy the proposed opinion verbatim so its inclusion in the record would be irrelevant. Frank replied a few hours later, and this Court ordered on August 26 for Frank to address the issue in his merits brief.

Standard of Review

This Court applies “an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court’s class certification rulings.” Klay v. Humana, Inc., 382 F.3d 1241, 1251 (11th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008). “However, with great power comes great responsibility; the awesome power of a district court [to certify] must be exercised within the framework of rule 23.” Id. (cleaned up). Thus, a “district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in

16

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 145 of 196

making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous”; or “by applying the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner”; or “imposes some harm, disadvantage, or restriction upon someone that is unnecessarily broad or does not result in any offsetting gain to anyone else or society at large.” Id. (cleaned up).

The district court’s factual determinations are reviewed “for clear error” and legal holdings reviewed “de novo.” Id. But “in the context of class actions, review for abuse of discretion often does not differ greatly from review for error.” Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., 817 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). Finally, “a court of appeals should review de novo a district court's determination of state law.” Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231 (1991). “When de novo review is compelled, no form of appellate deference is acceptable.” Id. at 238.

Summary of Argument

In the laboratory of democracy, the “diverse policy judgments of lawmakers in 50 States” have provided materially different remedies to their citizens for data breaches. But the settlement here sweeps all of that away with a single national class and uniform relief. It provides identical relief to a D.C. resident with a $2,000 statutory-damages claim that survived a motion to dismiss and to a Texas resident with no such claim. The district court approved such a settlement while denying

17

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 146 of 196

separate representation for the class members surrendering their statutory-damages claims for no additional compensation. Rules 23(a)(4) and 23(e)(2)(D) prohibit such Procrustean treatment, which does “violence not only to Rule 23 but also to principles of federalism.” In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012, 1020 (7th

Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.). The court contradicted Supreme Court precedent and erred as a matter of law when it held efficiency and the interests of the class as a whole overrode the rights of unrepresented subclasses. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). That ruling alone requires reversal, but the extraordinary irregularities getting to that result also merit attention. The court rejected objections by impermissibly relying on an “expert opinion” that was really a 72-page legal brief. It then delegated the writing of the opinion to plaintiffs—who, in violation of the local rules and the Code of

Conduct for United States Judges, submitted the proposed opinion to the court ex parte without opportunity for class members to review. It appears that the court adopted that 122-page ex parte opinion

“nearly verbatim” even though it was tens of thousands of words longer than its largely conclusory oral opinion. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1373 (11th Cir. 1997).7 Yet, inexplicably, even

7 This is not the only case pending in this Court with this judge and this class counsel and this fact pattern. See In re Home Depot Inc., Opening Br. 7, No. 20-10667 (Apr. 27, 2020) (26-page opinion).

18

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 147 of 196

though it is undisputed that these written ex parte communications took place, the district court has refused to place them on the record. As in

Edgar v. K.L., “[w]e cannot know” the contents for sure because of the court’s actions in hiding them, but those actions alone are grounds for both a presumption of wrongdoing and reassignment on remand. 93 F.3d

256, 258 (7th Cir. 1996) (Easterbrook, J.) (mandamus). So, too, in Chudasama, in less egregious circumstances. And in the class-action context, the lack of evidence of “independent judgment” by itself requires reversal. In re Community Bank of N. Va, 418 F.3d 277, 300-01 (3rd Cir. 2005). As part of that reliance on plaintiffs, the district court repeatedly made entirely baseless findings calling Frank an extortionist, premising an appeal bond on them. These should be vacated.

Argument

I. The district court erred as a matter of law in certifying the single settlement class where fundamental conflicts between subgroups of class members preclude adequate representation under Rule 23(a)(4).

The Settlement here has a single nationwide settlement class of 147,000,000 consumers affected by the 2017 Equifax data breach. Doc1029 at 4. But there are subgroups of class members within the class—uncertified and unrepresented—that waive valuable statutory- damages claims for no compensation above what class members without

19

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 148 of 196

claims receive. Doc739-2 at 12-23. There are fundamental conflicts of interest between these unrepresented subclasses, who have an interest in pursuing these separate legal remedies, and the other members of the certified class who lack such claims. “Recognizing the awesome power of a district court in controlling the availability of the class action mechanism, the Eleventh Circuit requires that decisions to certify a class rest on a rigorous analysis of the requirements of Rule 23.” Sacred Heart Health Sys. v. Humana Military

Healthcare Servs., 601 F.3d 1159, 1169 (11th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Certifying a single settlement class was improper here because the uncertified subgroups require separate subclassing and legal representation.

A. Rule 23(a)(4) requires adequate representation to protect class members’ due process rights—with heightened scrutiny in the settlement context. A court cannot certify a class action unless the class representatives “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(a)(4). The class representatives “must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348-49 (2011) (cleaned up). “Due process of law would be violated for the judgment in a class suit to be res judicata to the absent members of a class unless the court applying res judicata can conclude that the class was adequately represented in the

20

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 149 of 196

first suit.” Juris v. Inamed Corp., 685 F.3d 1294, 1322 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). Rule 23(a)(4) ensures that the absent class members’ interests are represented in the litigation so it is fair to bind them to decisions of the class representatives. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621. The district court’s duty to assure adequacy of representation does not end when the parties head to the settlement table. Even after the initial determination that the class representatives fairly and adequately represent the class, the court has a “continuing duty” to ensure that the

Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy is satisfied. Piambino v. Bailey, 757 F.2d 1112, 1145 n.88 (11th Cir. 1985). In fact, because Rule 23(a)(4) is “designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions,” adequacy of representation “demand[s] undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620. Amchem emphasized that heightened scrutiny of a settlement class’s adequacy of representation is of “vital importance” because unlike a case proceeding through litigation where a court can adjust the class, the absent class members are bound by their representatives’ decisions in the settlement negotiations. Id.

B. Fundamental conflicts exist between the class and subgroups with materially valuable statutory-damages claims. The single-settlement class here deprives subgroups (including Frank) of their due-process rights and Rule 23(a)(4) protections because

21

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 150 of 196

there are conflicts of interest between the class and the subgroups that have unique statutory-damages claims. With absent class members’ due process rights at stake, the safeguards of Rule 23(a)(4) are not “impractical impediments—checks shorn of utility—in the settlement- class context.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621. The heightened analysis

“encompasses two separate inquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest exist between the representatives and the class; and (2) whether the representatives will adequately prosecute the action.”

Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up); Amchem, 521 U.S. at 625. When that inquiry exposes substantial conflicts of interest among the class, certification is inappropriate. The Supreme Court confronted such conflicts in Amchem and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999). In Amchem, the Court held that certification of an asbestos class settlement was unlawful because the class combined (i) class members exposed to but not injured by asbestos, and (ii) class members already suffering from asbestos-related injuries.

521 U.S. at 597. The two groups’ interests were not aligned: while the currently-injured members wanted immediate payment, the exposure- only members sought funds for future compensation. Id. at 626-27.

Despite these competing interests and incentives, the named representatives had a duty to represent the whole class and therefore could not adequately serve their “separate constituency.” Id. at 627.

22

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 151 of 196

Two years later, Ortiz resolved a similar problem. The Supreme Court repeated what should have been “obvious after Amchem”: “a class divided between holders of present and future claims … requires division into homogeneous subclasses … with separate representation to eliminate conflicting interests of counsel.” 527 U.S. at 856. But the Court also recognized a second conflict between class members who suffered exposure while the defendant was insured and class members who were exposed after the insurance had expired. Id. at 853. Because class members who were exposed before insurance expired had “more valuable claims” than the other class members, the groups had “disparate interests” requiring subclassing with separate counsel. Id. at 857.

The Second Circuit’s decision in In re Literary Works demonstrates why subgroups with different statutory claims create intraclass conflicts requiring separate representation. 654 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2011). The settlement there provided compensation from Google for three separate “categories” of class members (labeled A, B, and C) in a single settlement class: claims in Category A were eligible for statutory damages, and the others were not. Id. at 246. Many class members held claims in more than one category. Id. The Literary Works settlement created a damages formula for each category, with Category A recovering the most pro rata. Id. The problem was that the class representatives were generally representing all subgroups—class representatives had claims in categories A, B, and C—

23

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 152 of 196

but were incentivized to favor their more exclusive category A and B claims. Id. at 251, 252 (citing Amchem, 521 U.S. at 627).

The Second Circuit had little difficulty in ruling that “the interests of class members who hold only Category C claims fundamentally conflict with those of class members who hold Category A and B claims.”

Id. at 254 (emphasis added). While “all class members shared an interest in maximizing the collective recovery, their interests diverged as to the distribution of that recovery because each category of claim is of different strength and therefore commands a different settlement value.” Id. (cleaned up and emphasis added). Literary Works struck the settlement on Rule 23(a)(4) grounds: the class representatives “cannot have had an interest in maximizing compensation for every category.” Id. at 252 (emphasis in original). See also Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 857 (discrediting “common interest in securing contested insurance funds for the payment of claims”); Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, 681 F.3d 170, 188 (3d Cir. 2012) (representative plaintiffs’ “interest in excluding other plaintiffs from the reimbursement group” was “precisely the type of allocative conflict of interest that exacerbated the misalignment of interests in Amchem”). This case has the same representational defects—with the added flaw that, unlike Literary Works, there was no attempt to provide additional value to those with more valuable statutory damages claims. The district court resolved a motion to dismiss against defendants and

24

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 153 of 196

found that plaintiffs could proceed with data breach claims from 28 jurisdictions and general consumer-protection statutes from 35 jurisdictions. Doc540 at 63-75. Like Literary Works, the surviving claims include statutory claims that only permit recovery of actual damages, as well as more valuable statutory claims that permit recovery of statutory liquidated damages. While the single settlement class had an interest in maximizing the total recovery, there was no representation to maximize recovery of the subgroups holding claims with much higher settlement values where statutory damages are available. For example, in the complaint, plaintiffs sought $2,000 in statutory damages for class members from Utah like Watkins, and $1,500 in statutory damages for class members from Washington, D.C. like Frank. Doc374 at 270, 517. But having been lumped together with class members from states without statutory-damages claims, Watkins and

Frank (and the other millions of class members with statutory-damages claims) had no one representing them at the negotiating table pressing their more valuable claims. Instead, all class members were treated as if their claims had the same settlement value and were provided the same relief, effectively releasing the more valuable statutory-damages claims for no additional consideration.

Frank objected that these fundamental intraclass conflicts precluded adequate representation under Rule 23(a)(4). Doc876 at 4-12. But the district court certified the class notwithstanding these conflicts.

25

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 154 of 196

In finding no fundamental conflicts, the district court erred as a matter of law in several respects.

1. The district court erred in distinguishing Literary Works and Amchem. The district court’s claimed distinctions with Literary Works are either inaccurate or irrelevant. First, the district court held that the “three claims categories in Literary Works were different in kind given the statutory scheme under which they arose” because in Literary Works

Category A claims were stronger and “uniquely valuable” because Category A claims were “eligible for statutory penalties” while Category C were only eligible for “actual damages.” Doc1029 at 61-62. But this is exactly the scenario here: D.C. and Utah residents are eligible for statutory penalties, and thus have claims that are stronger and more valuable than, say, Texas residents who are not.

Second, the district court reasoned that Literary Works merely required separate representation because Category C claims were “sold out”—that Category A could not “take all the settlement’s benefits, at least not without independent representation for the Category C claimants.” Id. at 61-62. The district court concluded: “In contrast, the proposed settlement in this case provides all class members with benefits and, unlike in the proposed settlement in Literary Works, is ‘carefully calibrated’ to do so.” Id. This is “no answer.” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 857. The district court got both the facts and the law wrong.

26

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 155 of 196

The Literary Works settlement provided that Category C compensation would reduce pro rata to zero if claims reached $18 million.

654 F.3d at 246. But that’s not why the Second Circuit found inadequate representation. In fact, the Second Circuit held that Category C’s inferior treatment under the settlement was not “determinative evidence of inadequate representation.” Id. at 253. The real problem was that even though the Category C claims were “indisputably worth less” than the other claims, without independent representation, there was “no basis for assessing whether the discount applied to Category C's recovery appropriately reflects that weakness.” Id. Indeed, if the Literary Works settlement had not accounted for

Category C’s weakness, “the ‘very decision to treat [claims] all the same [would] itself [have been] an allocation decision’ unfair to the interests of those who had authored registered works.” Id. at 253 (quoting Ortiz, 527

U.S. at 857 with alterations). The settlement here likewise treats all class members equally without regard for the strengths or weakness of the competing claims. This equivalent treatment is itself dispositive evidence of inadequate representation and contradicts the district court’s rationale that this settlement was carefully calibrated for class members. Third, the district court erred in distinguishing Literary Works because the class here was united in pursuing a common-law negligence claim under Georgia law. Doc1029 at 62. Yet in Literary Works, class members were similarly united by Category C claims which comprised

27

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 156 of 196

“more than 99% of authors’ total claims.” 654 F.3d at 246. But the Second Circuit held that “[a]lthough named plaintiffs collectively hold all three categories of claim, ‘each served generally as representative for the whole, not for a separate constituency.’” Id. at 251 (emphasis added) (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 627). That all class members had an interest in one claim does not mean that their unique claims were adequately represented. Cf. also In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223, 235 (2d Cir. 2016) (“[N]amed plaintiffs with claims in multiple subgroups cannot adequately represent the interests of any one subgroup because their incentive is to maximize their own total recovery, rather than the recovery for any single subgroup.”).

2. The district court’s flawed comparison of the Georgia, D.C., and Utah statutes only underscores the need for separate representation. The district court wrongly justified “differences” among the state statutory remedies based on the purported strength of the Georgia negligence claim compared to the D.C. and Utah claims. Doc1029 at 62- 63. Its reasoning is belied by the district court’s own “considerable doubt whether Equifax under Georgia law even had a legal duty to protect anyone’s personal information.” Doc943 at 14. Indeed, there is no duty under Georgia negligence law to safeguard another person’s information. Dep’t of Labor v. McConnell, 828 S.E.2d 352, 358 (Ga. 2019). With no

28

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 157 of 196

duty, the court’s reasoning (Doc1029 at 63) that nominal damages for the negligence claims could yield more than the state statutory-damages claims also fails. Indeed, while the district court touted the strength of the Georgia claim in relation to the Utah and D.C. claims to explain away

Rule 23(a)(4) intraclass conflicts, it used the weakness of the Georgia claim to both justify class counsel’s fee award, Doc1029 at 93, and to justify the adequacy of the settlement relief, id. at 18. In any event, the weaknesses of Georgia common-law claims cannot justify the court’s failure to recognize that the other state-law statutory claims do not suffer the same weaknesses. See Sharp Farms v. Speaks, 917 F.3d 276, 301-02

(4th Cir. 2019). The district court’s disregard of the Utah and D.C. statutes fare no better. To begin, the district court questioned plaintiffs’ ability to prove liability under the state statutes. Doc1029 at 63. But the Final Approval Order includes no discussion of the D.C. statute and no explanation why the Georgia negligence statute that permits only actual damages (and likely no recovery under McConnell) would have a higher settlement value than the D.C. statute providing $1,500 in statutory damages. So too for the dozens of other state statutes the opinion ignores.

For Utah, the district court questioned plaintiffs’ ability to prove liability because the statute “requires each plaintiff to establish a ‘loss.’” Doc1029 at 63 (citing Utah Code Ann. §13-11-19). Under Utah law,

29

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 158 of 196

however, “it is apparent that the Legislature has opted to create a broader category of ‘loss,’ i.e., ‘damage, damages, deprivation, detriment, injury, [and] privation,’ for which a consumer may seek redress under the statute.” Andreason v. Felsted, 137 P.3d 1, 4 (Utah App. 2006). Utah does not require actual damages for recovery. Id. But even if it did, the district court had already recognized that plaintiffs had adequately pled financial losses, “alleg[ing] that they have already incurred significant costs in response to the Data Breach.” Doc540 at 20. Yet, the court ignored those losses. The district court also questioned whether the Utah statute could proceed as a class action. Doc1029 at 63. But Equifax unsuccessfully attempted to dismiss fifteen of the state putative classes (including Utah) because the statutes purportedly restricted class actions. Doc425-1 at 41. Having allowed those claims to proceed, the court could not then discard such claims in the resulting settlement as valueless. Indeed, as plaintiffs argued in opposing Equifax’s motion to dismiss (Doc452 at 46-47), this Court has already held that federal procedure permits class actions for violations of state statutes like Utah’s that have state procedural bars. In Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, the defendant moved to dismiss a class action brought under an Alabama statute that did not permit class actions. 792 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2015). Lisk held that Rule 23 controlled in federal court. Id. at 1334-35 (following Shady Grove

30

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 159 of 196

Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (same result for New York statute)). Lisk found that, like Shady Grove, permitting a class action would not enlarge a substantive right because the Alabama statute permitted an individual redress. Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1335-36. The same is true for the Utah claims where plaintiffs seek recovery for deceptive acts and practices. Doc374 at 510-517. Accordingly, those claims may proceed as a federal class action and the district court should not have discounted the claim’s value on that basis.

The district court erroneously relies on Target, where a district court rejected a similar argument regarding intraclass conflicts based on competing state statutory-damages claims because of unspecified

“substantial barriers” to recovery of supposedly “uncertain” statutory damages under those statutes. Doc1029 at 59-60. That holding is simply wrong. By definition, statutory damages are far more “certain” because they eliminate the need to prove the amount of harm. On appeal in Target, the Eighth Circuit did not address this holding, ruling that the objector-appellant lacked standing to raise this conflict because he was not a resident of a state that accorded statutory damages. 892 F.3d 968, 973 n.4 (8th Cir. 2018). No such standing issues exist here, as Frank and Watkins are residents of such states.

Moreover, the district court’s faulty analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the Georgia, Utah and D.C. claims is contradicted by the district court’s own findings and applicable law demonstrates the need

31

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 160 of 196

for Rule 23(a)(4) protections. Separate counsel for the subgroups would have pressed these arguments (and others) to vie for their respective clients’ share of the settlement pie, rather than attempt to denigrate them to cram down a settlement quickly. See Section I.C below. Class counsel’s incorrect arguments before the district court undermining the strength of the subclass’s claims (e.g., Doc943 at 97) by themselves show the conflict of interest and inadequate representation. “The rationale [for separate representation] is simple: how can the value of any subgroup of claims be properly assessed without independent counsel pressing its most compelling case?” Literary Works, 654 F.3d at 253.

3. The district court’s holding wrongly limits the definition of Rule 23(a)(4) fundamental conflicts. The district court wrongly held that no fundamental conflict existed based on Valley Drug Co., 350 F.3d at 1189. Doc1029 at 55. In Valley

Drug, plaintiffs (drug wholesalers) challenged a drug company’s monopoly that was keeping less-expensive generic products off the market. Id. at 1184. Some of the wholesalers, however, actually benefitted from the lack of generic competition because generic sales often bypassed wholesalers. Id. at 1191. This Court reversed class certification: “A fundamental conflict exists where some party members claim to have been harmed by the same conduct that benefitted other members of the class.” Id. at 1189.

32

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 161 of 196

Relying on Valley Drug, the district court here concluded that there was no conflict because “[n]o class members were made better off by the data breach such that their interests in the outcome of the litigation are adverse to other class members. Similarly, all class members benefit from the proposed settlement, while none are harmed by it.” Doc1029 at 55.

But Valley Drug does not limit conflicts to such fact patterns. Valley Drug’s disjunctive statement—that “a class cannot be certified when its members have opposing interests or when it consists of members who benefit from the same acts alleged to be harmful to other members of the class”—indicates that class certification is improper under either scenario. 350 F.3d at 1189 (emphasis added).

Moreover, Valley Drug speaks broadly about conflicts that defeat class certification: “where the economic interests and objectives of the named representatives differ significantly from the economic interests and objectives of unnamed class members.” Id. at 1190. The Valley Drug conflict is merely one type of intraclass conflict and does not foreclose the possibility of other types of conflicts that may preclude class certification.

If fundamental conflicts were limited to the district court’s interpretation, Amchem and Ortiz (where none of the plaintiff-asbestos victims benefitted from defendants’ conduct) would have turned out differently. Similarly, the district court incorrectly held there was no conflict of interest based on W. Morgan-E. Lawrence Water & Sewer Auth. v. 3M

33

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 162 of 196

Co., 737 F. App’x 457 (11th Cir. 2018). There, the class included both the water authority and consumers against the polluting companies even though consumers had also filed injury claims against the water authority. Id. at 464. The district court explained that in 3M “[b]ecause the water authority had an interest in maximizing the injunctive relief obtained from the alleged polluters while minimizing the value of (if not undermining entirely) consumers’ claims for compensatory damages, a fundamental intra-class conflict plainly existed.” Doc1029 at 61. The district court concluded: “No such fundamental conflict exists here.” Id. Again, fundamental conflicts are not limited to that fact pattern. Instead, 3M’s broader principles demonstrate that a conflict exists here precluding Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy. While the water authority and the consumers had a shared interest in seeking injunctive relief, the consumers had monetary claims for individualized harms “not shared” by the water authority. 737 Fed. App’x at 464. The question is whether a representative will “assert with ‘forthrightness and vigor’ those interests of other class members that he does not share and in which he has no stake.” Lyons v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Salaried Employees Ret. Plan, 221 F.3d 1235, 1253 (11th Cir. 2000). “Conflicts of interest may arise when one group within a larger class possesses a claim that is neither typical of the rest of the class nor shared by the class representative.” Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir. 2010).

34

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 163 of 196

The district court cited (Doc1029 at 60 n.29) Dickens v. GC Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 706 F. App’x 529, 536 (11th Cir. 2017), which found only a

“minor conflict” where the class representative sought statutory damages although other class members may have suffered hypothetical actual damages. Representatives are not inadequate because they do not seek

“every remedy that possibly—as opposed to probably—would be sought by absent class members.” Id. Here, the statutory damages claims were more than “possible,” or even “probable,” but were actually pled in subclasses and survived a motion to dismiss. Doc540. Dickens demonstrates that the conflict is not “minor.” As Lyons explains: “Indifference as well as antagonism can undermine the adequacy of representation.” 221 F.3d at 1253. Thus, class members need not have directly adverse claims (as in Valley Drug or 3M) for a fundamental conflict to exist. Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy is deficient when representatives do not have an interest in vigorously pursuing a subgroup’s unique claims.

4. The district court erred in finding that class members’ ability to opt out cures Rule 23(a)(4) conflicts. The district court wrongly rejected the need for subclassing because class members had the ability to opt out. Doc943 at 121. An opt-out right is not a panacea. (Indeed, Amchem involved an opt-out class.) Opt-out “does not relieve the court of its duty to safeguard the interests of the class and to withhold approval from any settlement that creates conflicts

35

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 164 of 196

among the class.” In re GMC Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 809 (3d Cir. 1995).

Nor can a class member’s failure to object or opt-out, particularly in a large-scale consumer class action, be interpreted as agreement with the settlement terms or provide any indication of the settlement’s fairness.

See Redman v. Radioshack Corp., 768 F.3d 622, 628 (7th Cir. 2014) (“naïve” to infer assent from silence). If opt-out ability could cure Rule 23(a)(4) conflicts, Amchem would have turned out differently and

Rule 23(b)(3) settlements could proceed regardless of intraclass conflicts, effectively abrogating 23(a)(4).

C. Separate subclassing and representation cannot be ignored to simplify negotiations. Resolving the intraclass conflict “requires division into homogeneous subclasses under Rule 23(c)(4)(B) [recodified as

Rule 23(c)(5) after amendments], with separate representation to eliminate conflicting interests of counsel.” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 856. Separate subclassing and independent counsel ensures “structural assurance” of fair and adequate representation. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 627. This Court thus stressed the importance of independent counsel for “structural protection” of Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy in Juris, 685 F.3d at

1323. Plaintiff Juris challenged the settlement, arguing that the district court should have created subclasses for those with current injuries and those with only potential, future injuries. Id. at 1322. The Court held that

36

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 165 of 196

while there were no formal subclasses, there was sufficient structural protection because the district court had appointed representatives with varying injuries or no injuries who understood their representative roles and “served as the functional equivalents of formal subclasses.” Id. at 1326.

“Most significantly, and anticipating an Amchem problem,” Juris emphasized, the district court had appointed independent counsel for these subgroups. Id. at 1324. “[T]he interests of those claimants with unmanifested injuries were represented and given a separate seat at the negotiation table through qualified and independent counsel.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Piambino, 757 F.2d at 1145 n.88 (requiring designation of a separate subclass “with the right to have separate counsel unbeholden to Lead Counsel”). Here, in contrast, the subgroups with statutory-damages claims have different settlement values but they did not have separate counsel to maximize those values. They did not have a seat at the negotiation table. Although Frank raised Juris at length (Doc876 at 10-11), the district court did not discuss it. Instead, the district court found that creating numerous subclasses with competing teams of lawyers would have “rendered productive negotiations difficult” and cause “needless duplication of effort, inefficiency, and jury confusion.” Doc1029 at 54-55.

37

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 166 of 196

That analysis is reversible error by itself for several reasons. First, the due process protections provided by Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy cannot be sacrificed for efficiency nor “shorn of utility.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621. “Tempting as it is to alter doctrine in order to facilitate class treatment, judges must resist so that all parties’ legal rights may be respected.” In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012, 1020 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J.) (citing Amchem, 521 U.S. at 613). The rights of disparate class members cannot be sacrificed for the convenience of settlement negotiations. As Bridgestone/Firestone noted, “Differences across states may be costly for courts and litigants alike, but they are a fundamental aspect of our federal republic and must not be overridden in a quest to clear the queue in court.” 288 F.3d at 1020. To do otherwise does “violence not only to Rule 23 but also to principles of federalism.” Id.

The conflicts here present the same federalism concerns. The varying data breach and consumer protection statutes reflect judgment decisions by legislators from each of the jurisdictions where class members reside. Doc374; cf. BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 570 (1996) (discussing “diverse policy judgments of lawmakers in 50 States”). Ignoring the intraclass conflicts because it might make negotiations “difficult” undermines those legislative judgments and principles of sovereignty and comity, and the due process rights of absentees. Simply put, neither the settlement proponents nor the court

38

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 167 of 196

may “rewrite Rule 23” to further the “common interest in securing” “a global settlement.” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 857-859 & n.33. What is true for

“the elephantine mass of asbestos cases” (id. at 821) is more so for this considerably less sprawling case. Second, the district court’s reasoning is based on the flawed assumption that 34 subclasses are needed. Doc1029 at 55 n.26. While Frank argued that independent counsel was necessary, he never argued that each jurisdiction required separate counsel. Doc943 at 78-79. This case could likely proceed with a nationwide class and just three subclasses. When “the applicable state laws can be sorted into a small number of groups, each containing materially identical legal standards, then certification of subclasses embracing each of the dominant legal standards can be appropriate.” Klay, 382 F.3d at 1262; see also Sacred Heart, 601 F.3d at 1180 (plaintiffs bear burden of grouping subclasses with “states that have similar legal doctrines” (internal quotation omitted)). Likewise, it is possible for plaintiffs here to satisfy their burden of proving adequacy by grouping class members with materially similar legal remedies. “Post-Amchem courts have emphasized that a settlement class must be cohesive” with “a common nucleus of facts and potential legal remedies.” Manual Complex Litigation §21.132, at 251 (4th ed. 2004) (“Manual”); cf. Drayton v. Western Auto Supply Co., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 28211, at *21-22 (11th Cir. 2002) (no 23(a)(4) adequacy where

39

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 168 of 196

representatives were “pursuing remedies for themselves they are not seeking for the class”). The district court’s order dismissed all but the negligence and injunctive claims on behalf of the nationwide class, Doc540 at 13-14, 46, 48, for which plaintiffs sought compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, Doc374 at 189, 192. Of the surviving state statutory claims, 30 statutes permit recovery of only actual damages, see n.1 above, and would therefore not provide any additional remedies beyond the relief sought for the nationwide class.

The remaining claims, however, provide materially-different additional legal remedies, and should be grouped into at least three subclasses:

 Contract subclass. Unjust enrichment claims remain solely for the “Contract Plaintiffs”—those who alleged they formed a contract with Equifax. Doc540 at 48-49. The unjust enrichment claim seeks the “benefit conferred on Equifax,” i.e., profits from the sale of consumers’ information, Doc374 at 204, a separate measure of damages.

 Duty-to-safeguard subclass. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under 26 state statutes for Equifax’s failure “to implement and maintain reasonable security and privacy measures.” See nn.2-3 above.

 Duty-to-disclose subclass. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under eight state statutes for Equifax’s failure to disclose the data breach in a timely manner. See nn.4-5 above.

40

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 169 of 196

The statutory-damages subclasses are grouped based on the alleged duty because a class member could potentially recover statutory damages separately under both theories. E.g., Doc374 at 390-396 (Montana subclass’s Counts 56 and 57 for these two claims). (This list also demonstrates the false premise in the district court’s argument that

Amchem did not apply here because “all class members allege the same injury.” Doc1029 at 57. Not so: many allege unique causes of action and recovery not applicable to the class as a whole.)

While the specific amount of statutory damages available under the state statutes vary within the subclass, those differences should not affect predominance and a proportional administrative formula can allocate relief within the subclass. Cf. In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 219 (5th Cir. 1981). If there were material differences in law within the statutory-damages subclasses, plaintiffs could make appropriate adjustments and create additional subclasses as needed. The burden to propose necessary subclasses that comply with Rule 23(a)(4) rests squarely with plaintiffs. U.S. Parole Comm’n v.

Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 408 (1980). The district court complained of the inefficiency of having independent counsel for the litigation process, as well as the time- consuming appointment process. Doc1029 at 55 n.26. But the district court had already appointed thirteen firms to serve as counsel for the consumer plaintiffs. Doc232 at 2-4. That metastasized to sixty firms

41

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 170 of 196

seeking fees. Doc876 at 24. The court can appoint a new smaller leadership group, and three new firms as independent counsel

“unbeholden to Lead Counsel” (Piambino, 757 F.2d at 1145 n.88) for the statutory-damages subclasses, and end up with a more efficient structure than the status quo.

Finally, the district court wrongly reasoned that competing subclasses would “decrease[] the overall leverage” of the class in settlement negotiations. Doc1029 at 54. There is no evidence for that purely speculative assertion. As Piambino observed, a defendant is concerned only with the bottom line and not how the settlement proceeds are allocated, 757 F.2d at 1143, i.e., how the competing subclasses divide the settlement pie. The district court also gets it backwards. If Rule 23(a)(4) requirements are relaxed to avoid subclassing, the class actually loses leverage. In Amchem, the Supreme Court explained that eclipsing the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) to settle a case (that would be impossible to litigate) only “disarm[s]” class counsel in negotiations because they cannot “use the threat of litigation to press for a better offer.” 521 U.S. at 621 (citing academic and judicial authority). “[S]ettlement pressures have already been taken into account in the structure of Rule 23.” Klay,

382 F.3d at 1275. Simply put, it is legal error to consider the effect of subclasses on negotiations in assessing Rule 23(a)(4) inadequacy.

42

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 171 of 196

D. The district court’s finding that the “class as a whole” was better off without subclassing and independent counsel is independent legal error requiring reversal. The district court’s finding (Doc1029 at 59) that separate subclassing and independent representation was unnecessary because it would not benefit “the class as a whole” is independent error because it is the wrong standard. An objection that a settlement is inequitable because it treats inadequately represented subclasses unfairly may not be in the best interests of the class as a whole, but it is meritorious and in the best interests of the subclass disfavored by the settlement. Manual §21.643 at 327. While class members with no statutory-damages claims may prefer a settlement that provides the same relief for everyone, such class members should not be allowed to dilute the recovery for class members with statutory-damages claims, especially where the value of the release of these viable state claims undoubtedly fueled the class recovery. Even if representatives thought a settlement served “the aggregate interests of the entire class,” the representative must understand “their role is to represent solely the members of their respective subgroups.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 627 (internal quotations omitted). Rule 23(a)(4)

“protections must ensure that class representatives understand that their role is representing solely members of their respective constituency, not the whole class.” Juris, 685 F.3d at 1323.

43

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 172 of 196

The Amchem Court gave no weight to petitioners’ argument that “achieving a global settlement” could “discount the comparable failure in that case to provide separate representatives for subclasses with conflicting interests.” Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 858. Rule 23(a)(4) requires protections at the certification stage, while 23(e) settlement fairness is postcertification review. Id. Settlement fairness cannot “swallow” the preceding 23(a)(4) protections. Id. Here, the district court committed reversible error by incorrectly suborning the interests of the subclass to the interests of the class as a whole.

E. The district court’s Rule 23(e)(2)(D) analysis was similar error.

Relatedly, the district court also erred in holding (Doc1029 at 62 n.30) that that the inequitable treatment of class members with statutory-damages claims was permissible because “it could disadvantage the entire class” by leading to “no recovery.” Rule 23(e)(2)(D) requires the court to look beyond the class as a whole and ensure that the settlement “treats class members equitably relative to each other.” (emphasis added). This recent amendment to Rule 23 addresses concerns whether “the apportionment of relief among class members takes appropriate account of differences among their claims.”

Advisory Committee Notes on 2018 Amendments to Rule 23. Like the millions of other class members with statutory-damages claims, Frank

44

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 173 of 196

should not be subject to a settlement that does not account for his separate legal remedies.

F. The district court contravened Amchem and Ortiz by using the purported fairness of the settlement to excuse the fundamental conflict.

The district court erred by excusing the conflict based on the supposed fairness of the settlement. Doc1029 at 63-64; id. at 59-60 (relying on Target, 2017 WL 2178306, at *6). But the ends (settlement) cannot justify the means (inadequate representation). Rule 23(e) is “an additional requirement, not a superseding direction” and so the district court cannot ignore intraclass conflicts based on an assessment of the fairness of the settlement relief (23(e)) rather than the adequacy of representation (23(a)(4)). Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621. Federal courts “lack authority to substitute for Rule 23’s certification criteria a standard never adopted—that if a settlement is ‘fair,’ then certification is proper.” Id. at 622; Ortiz, 527 U.S. at 858-59; see also 3M, 737 Fed. App’x at 465 (adequacy cannot be assessed “by looking simply at whether the result of the negotiations seemed fair”); Literary Works, 654 F.3d at 253-54 (noting no dispute over fairness over allocation but decertifying class anyway). “[I]t is not the mission of Rule 23(e) to assure the class cohesion that legitimizes representative action in the first place.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623.

45

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 174 of 196

The reason is simple. While the negotiations and result may seem fair, the district court can never know whether the result actually reflects the weakness or strength of those claims that would have been revealed if they had been adequately represented. Literary Works, 654 F.3d at 252. The district court’s finding ignores Supreme Court precedent and improperly puts the cart before the horse by rationalizing adequacy of representation based on the purported fairness of the settlement relief.

II. Reversal and reassignment is required for the independent reason that the district court failed to exercise “independent judgment.” While a district court’s verbatim adoption of a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, although highly disapproved of, is not per se grounds for reversal (Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985)), “there must be evidence in the record demonstrating that the district court exercised ‘independent judgment’ in adopting a party’s proposed findings.” In re Community Bank of N. Va., 418 F.3d 277, 300 (3rd Cir. 2005) (vacating class certification). The district court did more than just adopt findings of fact, though: it adopted the proposed opinion verbatim or nearly verbatim. “This fact, even standing alone, would be enough for us to distinguish the holdings in Anderson.” Bright v.

Westmoreland County, 380 F.3d 729, 732 (3d Cir. 2004). “When a court adopts a party’s proposed opinion as its own” without providing opposing counsel an “opportunity to object or even respond to

46

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 175 of 196

the submitted opinion,” “the court vitiates the vital purposes served by judicial opinions.” Bright, 380 F.3d at 732. Every indication is that this happened here (it is undisputed that appellants never saw or had any opportunity to respond to the ex parte proposed opinion before entry), and the lack of “independent judgment” requires reversal.

This is especially true in a class action. It is “essential” that the court exercise “careful scrutiny” when approving settlements without acting as a “rubber stamp[]” or “captive” of the class attorneys. Holmes v.

Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144, 1150 (11th Cir. 1983); accord Community Bank. It also requires reassignment on remand: “delegating the task of drafting sensitive, dispositive orders to plaintiffs’ counsel, and then uncritically adopting his proposed orders nearly verbatim, would belie the appearance of justice to the average observer.” Chudasama v. Mazda

Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1373 (11th Cir. 1997).

A. This Court should presume that the district court uncritically adopted the 122-page opinion nearly verbatim from the proposed opinion. The district court ordered class counsel to prepare a proposed opinion that was to reflect the court’s oral decision. Doc945; Doc943 at 122-24. Though N.D. Ga. Civ. Loc. R. 5.1(A)(1) and 7.3 require proposed opinions to be placed on the docket and shared with parties, there is no dispute it was instead submitted ex parte without notice to

47

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 176 of 196

objectors. The ex parte submission to the district court, and the district court’s reliance on it, contravened Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for

United States Judges and the local rules. Frank only learned the proposed opinion was submitted to the court when the court entered a final opinion on January 13 that was tens of thousands of words and an order of magnitude longer than the largely conclusory oral opinion. Doc956. As noted above, the district court has refused to include the ex parte proposed opinion in the record.

The burden is on appellees to show that the final opinion is not a nearly verbatim copy of the ex parte proposed opinion. “The ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary.” U.S. v. N.Y.N.H.&H. R.R. Co., 355 U.S. 253, 256 n.5 (1957); accord Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508

U.S. 602, 626 (1993); Sikes v. Teleline, Inc., 281 F.3d 1350, 1362 (11th Cir. 2002), overruled in part on other grounds by Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Mobile Drilling Barge, 424 F.2d 684, 694 (5th Cir. 1970). In the alternative, if this Court is unwilling to presume that the final decision is a nearly verbatim copy of the proposed opinion, then the district court’s denials of the FRAP 10(e) motions (Doc1106; Doc1153) are each clearly erroneous, and should be reversed. See e.g., U.S. v. Greco, 938 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2019) (“we have authority to independently

48

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 177 of 196

correct the record” and review district court’s decision under FRAP 10(e)(1)). Due process requires that Frank be given an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing in this Court on the complete record before this Court reaches the merits of his appeal.

B. The district court committed independent reversible error by abdicating its independent judgment and relying on the inadmissible Klonoff expert report for legal conclusions. The district court limited objectors to 25 pages for objections and class counsel to 75 pages for responses. Doc742 at 9; Doc892. Class counsel evaded these limits by submitting an additional 72-page brief from Robert Klonoff and calling it an “expert declaration”—though all of the expert opinions were legal opinions and argument. Doc900-2. The report was thus inadmissible under FRE 702. Commodores Entm’t Corp. v. McClary, 879 F.3d 1114, 1129 (11th Cir. 2018); Freund v. Butterworth,

165 F.3d 839, 863 n.34 (11th Cir. 1999); Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir. 2016). A question of law or mixed question of law and fact such as class certification “is not a matter subject to expert testimony.” Freund, 165 F.3d at 863 n.34. Frank objected on these grounds. Doc909-1. At the fairness hearing, the court held Klonoff’s responses

“meritorious and appropriate,” and did not address Frank’s objection to them. Doc943 at 116-17. The court repeatedly relied on Klonoff’s report at the fairness hearing. Id. The final opinion repeatedly mirrors Klonoff,

49

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 178 of 196

sometimes verbatim, on questions of law. Compare, e.g., Doc1029 at 54, 64, and 65 with Doc900-2 at 58, 62, and 62 respectively. It was reversible error to use the “expert declaration” to justify class certification and reject objections. The district court made two arguments for overruling Frank’s objection to Klonoff, for the first time in the written opinion apparently drafted by plaintiffs: (1) Daubert does not apply to fairness hearings; and (2) the declaration met Daubert because of Klonoff’s experience. Doc1029 at 115-19. The first is wrong; the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to all civil proceedings. FRE 1101(b). The second is beside the point, as Frank objected to Klonoff opining on legal questions (Doc909-1), a question the court never addressed. The district court’s putative disclaimers of its reliance on the Klonoff report (Doc1029 at 38-39, 119) do not cure the reversible error.

For example, Community Bank refused to credit a similar claim that the court conducted independent review. 418 F.3d at 301.

C. Nearly verbatim adoption of a proposed opinion materially different from the court’s oral rulings in a fundamentally unfair process requires reversal and reassignment. The resulting errors also require vacating the appeal bond. In Chudasama, the district court advised the parties in writing that it intended to rule for plaintiffs, and requested counsel to draft the opinion and order. 123 F.3d at 1364. Counsel submitted an 86-page

50

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 179 of 196

proposed order; defendant Mazda submitted objections; the court struck sixteen pages and entered a seventy-page order. Id. This Court reversed and reassigned, applying the three-factor test from U.S. v. Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1446 (11th Cir. 1989):

(1) whether the original judge would have difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside; (2) whether reassignment is appropriate to preserve the appearance of justice; (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to the gains realized from reassignment. 123 F.3d at 1373-74. The facts here are far worse than in Chudasama, and require reversal and reassignment.

The court’s approval at the fairness hearing was relatively cursory; the Court’s discussion of its reasons for rejecting objections to settlement approval took up less than ten pages of the 125-page transcript. Doc943 at 113-22. And the court never addressed Frank’s objection to Klonoff. But the final opinion expanded the court’s rationale to 122 written pages, and included self-serving statements apparently drafted by class counsel attempting to nullify the district court’s erroneous reliance on the Klonoff expert report at the fairness hearing. This abdication in a dispositive order affecting tens of millions of people requires reversal under Holmes and Community Bank; Chudasama also requires reassignment for “delegating drafting sensitive, dispositive orders to plaintiffs’ counsel, and then uncritically adopting [their] proposed orders nearly verbatim.”

51

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 180 of 196

The “cases admonishing trial courts for the verbatim adoption of proposed orders drafted by litigants are legion.” Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1373 n.46 (cleaned up) (citing cases). No decision of this Court has permitted a district court to delegate the drafting of a judicial opinion to prevailing counsel without giving opposing counsel an opportunity to see and object to the proposed opinion, as happened here. Such a procedure is fundamentally unfair. Cases cited by appellees are not to the contrary. For example, In re

Colony Square Co., which predates Chudasama, accepted a bankruptcy judge’s verbatim adoption of an attorney’s proposed opinion on a purely legal question because the appellant had already had the opportunity of district-court review by a judge that gave the decision independent de novo consideration. 819 F.2d 272, 277 (11th Cir. 1987). Anderson is also distinguishable: the “respondent was provided and availed itself of the opportunity to respond at length to the proposed findings.” 470 U.S. at 572. And Anderson concerned proposed findings of fact, rather than a court’s reasoning in an opinion. Bright, 380 F.3d at 732. Furthermore, the Anderson findings “var[ied] considerably in organization and content from those submitted by [class] counsel” and the Anderson court provided “the framework for the proposed findings when it issued its preliminary memorandum.” 470 U.S. at 572-73. Again, none of that happened here, where the district court’s 122-page opinion was copied nearly verbatim from the proposed opinion, and went well

52

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 181 of 196

beyond the cursory guidance the district court provided (Doc943 at 113-22) in the fairness hearing.

There are additional elements of fundamental unfairness here. First, the district court withheld the proposed opinion from the appellate record. Doc1106; Doc1153. Frank can find only one instance where an appellate court has addressed the situation where a district-court judge has admittedly received ex parte communications on the merits and then denied a motion to disclose the communications on the record for an appellate court to evaluate. The Seventh Circuit disqualified the judge on mandamus. K.L., 93 F.3d at 258. And this case is worse in some ways than K.L., because the communications in question were written, rather than oral, and the district court here, unlike the K.L. court, gave no credible explanation for excluding the materials in a motion to supplement the record. As in K.L., the district did not “attempt[] to reconcile [his decision] with Canon 3A(4).” Id. at 259; compare Doc1106 and Doc1153. K.L. found the combination of the judge’s ex parte communications and refusal to disclose them for appellate review required recusal on mandamus. If the district court had simply denied Frank’s Rule 10(e) motion, it would have been extraordinary. But doing so after granting the original unopposed Rule 10(e) motion because of plaintiffs’ motion for “clarification” warning of the danger of judicial embarrassment (Doc1093) is even more extraordinary. No appellate

53

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 182 of 196

court has ever permitted a district court to attempt to manipulate an appeal in this manner.

Second, the district court’s nearly-verbatim copying of the proposed opinion found Frank to be an unethical “serial objector” advancing objections for the “improper purpose” of “benefit[ing] only the objectors and their attorneys.” Doc1029 at 109 (quoting Manual §21.643). (The court elsewhere repeated this accusation against Frank, defining “serial objector” as one who “extorted money from counsel in prior class actions.”

Doc1094 at 7; accord id. at 8-9. This is consistent with class counsel’s definition of the term in their briefing. Doc902 at 40.) But plaintiffs never accused Frank of being a “serial objector” in their briefing. Doc902 at 40-42. At the fairness hearing, in reply to objectors, without notice, plaintiffs accused Frank for the first time. Doc943 at 88, 93-94. Objectors received no opportunity to respond to the new arguments plaintiffs made in reply; indeed, the district court forbade two objectors from responding to the new arguments (id. at 113) and ignored Frank’s request for additional briefing (id. at 79-80) if it was going to consider belated arguments. The district court’s oral findings at the fairness hearing did not mention Frank or the term “serial objector.” Doc943 at 113-22. But the final opinion sprung on Frank assertions of unethical conduct that were never mentioned in the oral opinion. The accusation of extortion is unsupported and utterly meritless: Frank has never settled an objection

54

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 183 of 196

for quid pro quo payment (Doc1057-2 at 12-13), foreswore receiving payment in this case that was not court-approved (id. at 13), and has been the leading activist against extortionist objectors, recently winning a landmark appellate case requiring disgorgement in one such case. Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020).8 And the criticism, irrelevant to the decision (class certification doesn’t become more or less appropriate for 147 million people no matter how sinister or saintly a particular objector is), is entirely gratuitous and punitive. The baseless extortionist finding was a premise of the appeal bond order, Doc1094 at 7-9, and requires that order be vacated as to Frank as well. Frank has won millions of dollars for unfairly disfavored class members in previous successful appeals of identical Rule 23(a)(4) issues. Doc1057-2 at 11-12 (citing Lithium). There is no basis to hold that

8 The written opinion’s other accusations against Frank, again unmentioned in the oral opinion, are similarly false. Compare, e.g., Doc1029 at 113 (finding bad faith because this Court had supposedly found a Frank argument “improper”) with Poertner v. Gillette Co., 618 F. App’x 624 (11th Cir. 2015) (making no such finding) with Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2014) (adopting Frank’s arguments that Poertner rejected). See generally Doc1057-2. Frank never made “false and misleading” statements (compare Doc1029 at 113-14 with Doc1057-2 at 4-10), but it is impossible to fully respond to these assertions because “those findings have taken the form of conclusory statements unsupported by citation to the record.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 572.

55

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 184 of 196

Frank’s objection and appeal has “improper purpose” or is in bad faith or is meant “to obstruct and delay.” Doc1029 at 109; Doc1094 at 7-9;

Doc1153. After all, “appellate correction of a district court’s errors is a benefit to the class.” Crawford v. Equifax Payment Svcs., 201 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2000) (Easterbrook, J.).

This “strong language” that the court readily signed onto more than “suggest[s] that the district judge may have trouble putting aside his previous views.” Chudasma, 123 F.3d at 1373. And the “strong language” here was made through a false last-minute allegation that Frank had no notice of, and then adopted through nearly verbatim copying of a proposed opinion. Such conduct demonstrates an “utter lack of appearance of impartiality,” and “belie[s] the appearance of justice to the average observer.” Id. at 1373 & n. 46. This procedural unfairness compounded the other irregular procedural unfairness where (1) objectors were limited to 25-page objections, but class counsel was allowed to evade page limits to submit what became dispositive legal argument through a lengthy inadmissible

72-page brief masquerading as expert opinion; (2) class counsel then was permitted to submit without leave of court additional factual arguments the night before and at the fairness hearing, weeks after a court-ordered deadline (Doc742 at 15); and (3) the court then ignored Frank’s request (Doc943 at 79) for an opportunity to respond.

56

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 185 of 196

The third Torkington factor, “waste and duplication,” does not weigh against replacement. This case has had minimal litigation that has not progressed beyond resolution of a motion to dismiss and an answer. Doc900-1 at 8. There is far less waste and duplication here than in Chudasama, and, as there, the extent of the demonstration of bias means that the “gains to be realized from reassignment will far outweigh the costs.” 123 F.3d at 1374. As in Chudasama, “[t]he extent of the judge’s abuse of discretion— and the partiality of the practices constituting that abuse—would have a significant effect on the appearance of justice should he remain assigned to this case.” 123 F.3d at 1373. Reassignment is regrettably necessary.

Conclusion Class certification and settlement approval must be reversed. The appeal bond order (Doc1094) and its baseless accusations of extortion must be vacated against Frank and Watkins. The Court should mandate the district court request the Judicial Panel for reassignment. R. Proc. U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litig. 2.1(e).

If the Court is unwilling to do this without seeing the ex parte proposed opinion first, it should order the record corrected under FRAP 10(e)(3) and order additional briefing.

57

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 186 of 196

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Theodore H. Frank Theodore H. Frank Melissa A. Holyoak HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (703) 203-3848 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Appellants Theodore H. Frank and David Watkins

58

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 187 of 196

Addendum of Statutes and Rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Class Actions.

(a) Prerequisites. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: … (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. …

(c) Certification Order; Notice to Class Members; Judgment; Issues Classes; Subclasses. … (5) Subclasses. When appropriate, a class may be divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class under this rule. …

(e) Settlement, Voluntary Dismissal, or Compromise. The claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class—or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement—may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval. The following procedures apply to a proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise: … (2) Approval of the Proposal. If the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve it only after a hearing and only on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate after considering whether: … (D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

59

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 188 of 196

… (5) Class-Member Objections. (A) In General. Any class member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval under this subdivision (e). …

Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Testimony by Expert Witness.

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Federal Rule of Evidence 1101. Applicability of the Rules.

… (b) To Cases and Proceedings. These rules apply in: • civil cases and proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases; • criminal cases and proceedings; and • contempt proceedings, except those in which the court may act summarily. …

60

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 189 of 196

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. The Record on Appeal.

… (e) Correction or Modification of the Record. (1) If any difference arises about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference must be submitted to and settled by that court and the record conformed accordingly. (2) If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded: (A) on stipulation of the parties; (B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or (C) by the court of appeals. (3) All other questions as to the form and content of the record must be presented to the court of appeals.

61

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 190 of 196

Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently.

The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities. … (4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law. Except as set out below, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a judge receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter, the judge should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties an opportunity to respond, if requested. A judge may:

(a) initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications as authorized by law;

(b) when circumstances require it, permit ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, but only if the ex parte communication does not address substantive matters and the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; … …

62

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 191 of 196

D.C. Code § 28-3905. Complaint procedures.

… (k) … (2) Any claim under this chapter shall be brought in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and may recover or obtain the following remedies: (A) (i) Treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer; (ii) Notwithstanding sub-subparagraph (i) of this subparagraph, for a violation of § 28-3904(kk) a consumer may recover or obtain actual damages. Actual damages shall not include dignitary damages, including pain and suffering. (B) Reasonable attorney’s fees; (C) Punitive damages; (D) An injunction against the use of the unlawful trade practice; (E) In representative actions, additional relief as may be necessary to restore to the consumer money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of the unlawful trade practice; or (F) Any other relief which the court determines proper.

Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-19. Actions by Consumer.

… (2) A consumer who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this chapter may recover, but not in a class action, actual damages or $2,000, whichever is greater, plus court costs. …

63

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 192 of 196

Northern District of Georgia Civil Local Rule 5.1. Electronic and Paper Documents; Format; Legibility.

(A) Electronic.

(1) Documents in civil and criminal cases will be filed, signed, and verified by electronic means to the extent and in the manner authorized by the Court’s Standing Order, In Re: Electronic Case Filing and Procedures, as contained in Appendix H of these Local Rules. Documents filed electronically shall substantially conform to the requirements of these Local Rules. …

…

Appendix H (Standing Order No. 19-01). Revised Electronic Case Filing Standing Order and Administrative Procedures.

Definitions … 7. “Proposed Order” is a draft document submitted by an attorney for a judge’s signature. A proposed order shall accompany a motion or other request for relief as an electronic attachment to the document.

… II. ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS

A. FILING GENERALLY … 2. All motions, pleadings, applications, briefs, memoranda of law, deposition transcripts, transcripts of proceedings, or other documents in a case to include attachments to the extent feasible

64

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 193 of 196

shall be electronically filed on ECF except as otherwise provided by these administrative procedures.

3. Emailing a document to the Clerk’s Office or to the assigned judge shall not constitute “filing” of the document. A document shall not be considered filed for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure until the filing party receives an ECF- generated “Notice of Electronic Filing” described in II(B)(1) of these procedures.

…

Northern District of Georgia Civil Local Rule 7.3. ORAL RULINGS ON MOTIONS.

Unless the Court directs otherwise, all orders, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, orally announced by the district judge in Court shall be prepared in writing by the attorney for the prevailing party. The original order shall be submitted to the district judge within seven (7) days from the date of pronouncement. Copies shall also be provided each party.

65

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 194 of 196

Statement of Related Cases Under Circuit Rule 28-2.6

Appeal Nos. 20-10249, 20-10610, 20-10611, 20-10612, 20-10613, and 20-11470 have been consolidated with Frank’s appeal 20-10609, and appeal the same final judgment. Appeal No. 20-10667 is an appeal from the decision resulting from this Court’s remand in In re Home Depot Inc., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), a case involving the same district court and the same lead class counsel Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC. In Home Depot, an appeal and cross-appeal from a fee decision, this Court reversed an attorney-fee order with explicit instructions how to proceed; on remand, the district court ignored the mandate and awarded fees based on a new methodology inconsistent with the law of the case. According to the appellants in No. 20-10667,

The District Court then instructed Class Counsel to prepare a proposed order. Class Counsel prepared a 26- page proposed order to which Home Depot objected as improper and exceeding the minimal reasoning provided by the District Court at the hearing. The District Court adopted Class Counsel’s proposed order with only minor typographical edits, overruling Home Depot’s objections. Opening Brief at 7.

Executed on September 4, 2020 /s/Theodore H. Frank Theodore H. Frank

66

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 195 of 196

Certificate of Compliance with Circuit Rule 28-1(m)

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. Proc. 32(a)(7)(B) because this brief contains 12,992 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 11th Cir. R. 32-4, as counted by Microsoft Word 2013. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App.

Proc. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in 14-point Century Schoolbook font.

Executed on September 4, 2020.

/s/Theodore H. Frank Theodore H. Frank

67

Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/04/2020 Page: 196 of 196

Proof of Service

I hereby certify that on September 4, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which will provide notification of such filing to all who are ECF-registered filers.

/s/Theodore H. Frank

68