Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005
OR'GINAl
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Page 14o.,f..7// .

'.

.~oritY
_Send

_Clsd

-.!.... Enter

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

_JS·~(JS·6
_JS·£!JS·3

Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx) Title: Chang, et al. v. United States

:;-r

".'fI Date:

August 29, 2005
U

=============================================~=======================
DOCKET ENTRY

PRESENT: Hon. George H. King, United States District
\

Beatrice Herrera Deputy Clerk

None Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DE

None

None

PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs' Renewed Motions to Amend Complaint, Consolidate Cases, and Certify a Class

This matter is before the Court on the above-entitled motions. After considering all the papers filed and oral argument, we rule as follows:

I. Background

The parties are familiar with the facts in the current action. consequently,. we will not repeat any facts except as necessary.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Amend

Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint to (1) redefine the class from "alien investors who are now subj.ect to the denial of their permanent residency . . . " to "alien investors . . . who have received or will receive a denial of their permanent residency . . . "; and (2) clarify their estoppel claim. Renewed Mot. to Amend at 7:11-24.
For the reasons stated below, we GRANT the motion to amend.

1. Legal Standard

Under Fed .. R. Civ. P. 15(a), A party may amend the party's complaint once as a matter of
'1 1\ course at any time before a' responsive pleading is served \
ct- \ . . . . Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 2 of 7

only by leave of court . . . ; and leave shall be freely
A given when justice so requires.
We should apply Rule 15's policy.of .favoring amendment with "extreme' liberality." DCD Programs. Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,,;i: 186 (9th Cir. 1987). "This liberality in granting leave to amend i~ not dependent on whether the amendment will add new causes of action) or parties:" Id. Rather, in determining whether to grant leave~o ',,)
amend, we consider four factors:. (1) bad faith; (2) undue delay; (3) prejudice to the opposing party; and (4) futility of amendment. Id. "These factors are not equally important; the possibility of delay alone cannot justify denial of leave to amend." Genentech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 127 F.R.D. 529, 530 (N.D. Cal. 1989). The crucial factor is whether allowing amendment will result in prejudice to the opposing party. Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Keniston v. Roberts, 717 F.2d 1295, 1300 (9th Cir. 1983) ("[o]rdinarily, leave to amend should be freely given in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party") .
Moreover, the nonmoving party bears the burden of demonstrating
why leave to ~mend should not be granted. Genentech. Inc., 127 F.R.D. at 530-31. If the nonmoving party claims that the proposed claim is futile, we apply the same test as to legal sufficiency as on a Rule 12(b) (6) motion. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 204 F.R.D. 460, 463 n.5 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Rose v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000)).

2. Motion to Amend to Redefine the Class

Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating why we should

not allow plaintiffs to redefine the class to include those "alien

investors ~ . . who have.received or will receive a denial of their

permanent residency.

"Defendant's opposition to plaintiffs'

motion addresses only plaintiffs' proposed estoppel claim. As a

resul t, defendant has made no showing of any of the factors 'which

generally militate against granting leave to amend. Thus, we GRANT

the motion to redefine the class to include those "alien investors

. . . who have received or will receive a denial of their permanent

residency

/I

3. Motion to Amend to Clarify Estoppel Claim

Plaintiffs move to amend their complaint to c'larify their

estoppel claim alleging that plaintiffs cannot comply with the EB-5

program requirements due to allegedly illegal actions by Defendant.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that:

.

The [d]efendant should . . . be estopped from denying

[p]laintiffs' 1-829 applications ... as the failure to

comply with the investment and job preservation

requirements is solely due to the [d]efendant's affirmative

misrepresentations to' [pllaintiffs that first induced

2

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 3 of 7

[p]laintiffs to invest and thereafter determined the investment was illegal. Proposed S.A.C. , 137.

a. Prejudice
(/)
Defendant has not shown that it would be sufficiently prejudiced
by the amendment. No trial date has been set and, to the extent th"at.
additional limited discovery is necessary, we are inclined to grant such discovery so as to minimize any potential prejudice. See Genentech, Inc., 127 F.R.D. at 531 (finding that defendant's assertions that amendments would require it to '''depose numerous witnesses[, conduct] additional document searches and written discovery [and] that additional discovery will postpone the trial date [didl not constitute undue prejudice [because) [alccording to plaintiff, facts came to light only after the original complaint was filed and during the cours,e of discovery") .

b. Bad Faith

Defendant does not argue that plaintiffs' desire to amend is predicated on bad faith. Thus, .this factor does not weigh in favor of denying leave to amend.

c. Undue Delay

Defendant alleges that allowing additional amendments would cause undue delay as it would necessitate extensive discovery. As discussed above, however, no trial has been set and a substantial amount of discovery touching upon plaintiffs' estoppel claim has occurred. Thus, the amendment will not unduly delay the litigation.

d. Futility

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs' proposed amendment is futile

because it is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine, is outside of

the mandate of Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911, 930 (9th Cir.

2003), is unnecessary in light of defendant's proposed class

definition, and seeks a remedy barred by INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S.

875, 885 (1988).

'

Defendant's arguments are unava'iling. Plaintiffs' proposed

estoppel claim is distinct from the estoppel claim before the court

in Chang. In Chang, plaintiffs sought to estop defendant's from

retroactively applying the Precedent Decisions.' Plaintiffs'

, The Precedent Decisions include: In re Soffici, Int. Dec. 3359, 1998 WL 471519 (Exam. Comm. June 30, 1998); In re Hsiung, Int.
(continued ... )
3

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 4 of 7

proposed estoppel claim, however, seeks to estop defendant's from

denying plaintiffs' 1-829 applications on the grounds that plaintif~s

failed to comply with the investment and job preservation

~

requirements. Proposed S.A.C. ~ 137. As such, defendant's law-of-~

the-case and mandate arguments 'are unavailing. See United States y:;f'

Hughes Aircraft Co., 243 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizfgg that the 1aw-of-the-case "doctrine does nbt apply to issues not ~

addressed by the appellate court"); United States v. Washington, 172"

F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999) ("[M]andate 'is controlling as to all

matters within its compass, but leaves the district court any issue

not expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal.'").

Defendant's proposed class definition also fails to render

plaintiff's proposed estoppel claim futile as it is completely silent

as to plaintiffs' claim that they are unable to comply with the

investment and job preservation requirements due solely to

defendant's alleged affirmative miscon9uct.

Additionally, Pangilinan is inapplicable. Assuming that

plaintiffs succeed on their claim, we would not be conferring

citizenship or permanent legal residency even if we were to estop

defendant from denying plaintiffs' 1-829 requirements based upon,

their inability to comply with the investment and job preservation

requirements as an alleged result of defendant's misconduct. Before

plaintiffs' I-829s could be approved, plaintiffs would still have to

show that they complied with all requirements of the EB-5 program

prior to the date that defendant's alleged affirmative misconduct

caused the ~ermination of their investmerits.

,

Moreover, Salgado-Diaz v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.

2005), suggests that estoppel under these.circumstances may be

permissible. In Salgado-Diaz, the plaintiff sought review of a Board'

of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision finding him 'removable,

arguing that the government violated his due process rights by

unlawfully arresting him even though he was in immigration

proceedings at the time, involuntarily removing him pursuant to the

unlawful' arrest, and denying him a ,fair hearing before the BIA. Id.

at 1159. The government argued that, even if the plaintiff's claims

were true, the plaintiff's attempt to re-enter the U.S. with false

documents after he was allegedly involuntarily removed was "an

independent and adequate basis for ordering [the plaintiff)

removable." Id. at 1165. The court rejected the government's

independent and adequate basis argument, reasoning that if the

plaintiff could show that his due process rights were violated, then

I;:he government would be estopped from basing removal on "post-

expulsion events [that the defendant's] own misconduct set in

1 ( ••• continued) Dec. 3360, 199'8 WL 483978 (Exam. Comm. Jul. 13, 1998); In re Izumii, Int. Dec. 3361, 1998,WL 483977 (Exam. Comm. Jul. 31, 1998); In re Ho, Int. Dec. 3361, 1998 WL 483979 (Exam. Comm. Jul. 31, 1998).
4

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 5 of 7
"

motion." Id. at 1166. Similarly, plaintiffs argue that they are

unable to comply with the investment and job preservation

Cl

requirements solely because of defendant's alleged affirmative

w

misconduct. In other words, just as in Salgado-Diaz, plaintiffs ~

argue that defendant's alleged affirmative misconduct "set in motion':

a series of events that ultimately resulted in [plaintiffs) losing :~~:

[their] opportunity to seek relief under then-existing immigra2ion "'

laws that likely would have entitled" them to an adjustment of ,their

residency status. See id. Consequently, as recognized in

Salgado-Diaz, "the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes the INS

from relying on the consequences of its own alleged affirmative

misconduct to insulate that misconduct from review." See id. at

1165.

Finally, for purposes of a motion to amend, plaintiffs have

adequately stated a claim for equitable estoppel. Plaintiffs allege

affirmative misconduct in that defendant repeatedly assured

plaintiffs in meetings, memoranda, decisions, and continuous

approvals of petitions that their investments complied with the EB-S

program even though it secretly concluded that the investments were

unapprovable. See Proposed S.A.C. ~~ 12, 71, 79, 83, 101, 120-24,

134-35; see also Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir.

1989); Sun II Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1976); Lavin

v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378, 1382-83 (9thCir. 1981); Wagner v. Director,

FEMA; 847 F.2d 515, 519 (9th Cir. 1988). They allege that the

injustice to them outweighs any harm to the public interest because

their inability to comply with the investment and job preservation

requirements was caused solely by defendant's alleged affirmative

misconduct, which jeopardizes the sacrifices they made to emigrate to

the U.S. ~ id. ~~ 124, 133, 135. 137; see also Watkins, 875 F.2d

at 708-09; Sun II Yoo, 534 F.2d at 1329; Johnson v. Williford, 682

F.2d 868, 872-73 (9th Cir. 1982). They allege that defendant knew of

the structure of the AIS partnerships. See id. ~~ 12, 71, 101, 120-

22; see also Watkins, 875 F.2d at 710; Johnson; 682 F.2d at 872.

They allege that defendant intended plaintiffs to rely on its

representations that the AIS partnerships complied with the EB-5

program. See id. ~~ 125-28; see also Watkins, 875 F.2d at 710;

Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872-73. They allege that they were ignorant o~

the fact that their petitions were unapprovable. See id. ~~ 120-24;

see also Watkins, 875 F.2d at 710; Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872. Lastly,

they allege that they relied on defendant's assurances. See id. ~~

129, 132-33; see also Watkins, 875 F.2d at 710; Johnson, 682 F.2d at

872-73.

e. Conclusion re Motion to Amend to Clarify Estoppel Claim

In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to clarify their estoppel claim is GRANTED.

5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 6 of 7

B. Motion to Consolidate

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 42(a) provides, inter alia, that a court CJ

may order the consolidation of actions pending before it when such' z

actions involve a common question of law or fact, or when

,(

consolidation may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. A,cour~~

has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a motio~fq!

consolidation, although, typically, consolidation is favored.

Perez-Funez v. Dist. Dir., INS, 611 F. Supp. 990, 994 (C.D. Cal.

1984) (citing A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 503

F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974); Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204

(7th Cir. 1970)).

We GRANT plaintiff's motion to consolidate this matter with Ahn

v. United States, CV 01-7382-GHK(AJWx). Both actions involve common

questions of law in that they challenge the retroactive application

of the Precedent Decisions. Likewise, both actions involve common

questions of fact in that all plaintiffs allege that their 1-829

petitions will be denied under the Precedent Decisions, and that they

have complied with the EB-5 program requirements as they stood prior

to the publication of the Precedent Decisions.

Consolidation of the two actions would avoid unnecessary casts

and delay. Consolidating the actions would permit the Court to lift

the stay in Ahn and permit those plaintiffs to seek redress. Also;

failure to consolidate the matters would result in duplicative effort

and discovery. See Perez-Funez, 611 F. Supp. at 994.

Additionally, a preexisting· class action does not prevent the

future consolidation of one or more related cases for purposes of

fostering a more efficient and just resolution of plaintiffs' claims.

Moreover, consolidation with pending class actions is well recognized

in the field of securities litigation, see, e.g., Bowman v. Legato

Sys., Inc., 195 F.R.D. 655, 657 (N.D. Cal. 2000), and there are no

reasons to suggest that the benefits of consolidation are not as

applicable in the current context.

Accordingly, Ahn is hereby CONSOLIDATED with this matter. Ahn

is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. The allegations in the

complaint and answers and defenses in the answer in Ahn are deemed

incorporated into this matter. All further filings shall be made

under this case and number.

C. Motion to Certify Class

The parties propose different definitions for the proposed class. Neither party, however, has presented a sufficient explanation in support of the respective proposals. Moreover, in light of the amendments, the proposed class definitions are inadequate. As such, although we are inclined to grant certification for a class consistent with this order, we decline to do so at this
time. Instead, the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in an attempt to reach an agreement as to a class definition consistent

6

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 127 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 7 of 7

with this order, and file such proposed class definition with the

court by September 26, 2005. Should the parties fail to reach a

consensus, the parties shall file a-joint brief by September 26, 2005, that identifies: (i) plaintiffs' proposed class that they

fr:

allege is consistent with this order, followed by defendant's

:~

... specific objections and plaintiff's responses to such objections; ana

(ii) defendant's proposed class that it alleges is consistent with u

this order, followed by plaintiffs' specific objections and

~

defendant's responses to such objections. Upon the filing of such

agreed upon class definition or joint brief, we will determine

whether class certification is appropriate and issue all appropriate

orders.

III. Disposition

In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs' motion to amend complaint is GRANTED. Additionally, plaintiffs' motion for consolidation is GRANTED. At this time, however, we decline to rule on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. Upon our resolution of the certification issue as provided for herein, we will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint in conformity with this order and any order approving class certification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy

7

 
 • Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW

Document 132

•Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 3

1 Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzba1J~,Kuq;ban, Weing,~r & Tetzeli, P.A.
2 2650' S. vv. 27 Avenue, 2" Floor

Miami Florida 33133

3 Tel. (305) 444-0'0'60'

Fax. {3O'5) 444-350'3

4

....,.,J Marc Van Der Hout, ESCJ).1ire (jIiIilllWa
5 Van Der Hout & Bng~gIiano

r-....

(

180' Sutter Stre~ Fifth -Floor

~J!!!!~~!!'f

6 San Francisco, LA 9410'4 Tel. (415) 981-30'0'0'

7 Fax. (415) 981-30'0'3

C
it,

ti:11"

FILED

21'

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT CO RT 2: .

'l

;l:

.~. OCT 17m ,~

CENTRAL DIS
BY

8 (Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9 Peter D. Keisler

Assistant Attorney General

10 Civil Division

Ernesto Molina

11 Anthony Nicastro Office ofImmjgratjon Litigation

ORIGlNAl

12 Department otJustJce/C1Vl1 Division

P.O. l30x 878"...Ben Franklin Station

13 Washmgton1uC 20'0'44

Tel. (20'2) 6 6-9358

14 Fax. (20'2) 616-4975

(Attorneys for Defendant continued on next page)

15

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I

18 CHANG, Wen-Wan, et al.,

Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx)

19

Plaintiff,

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

20

vs.

ORDER RE JOINT FORMULATION OF NEW CLASS

21 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEFINITION FILED PURSUANT TO THIS COURT'S AUG. 29, 2005

22

Derendant

ORDER

23

Before: Judge George H. King

24 AHN, Kyung, Sook, et al.,

25

Plaintiff,

Consolidated with:
Case No.: CV Ol-07382-GHK(AJWx)

26

vs.

27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

28

Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - _..._.

OCT I 8 2JJ05

BY
-1-

021
!

, .

• Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW

Document 132

•Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 3

1 David GardnedState Bar No.: 89541) 6300 Wilshire Blvd.
2 Suite 10lO Los Angele~ CA 90048
3 Tel. (323) 6;,3·4514 Fax. (323) 651-5938

4

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5

John S. Gordon

6 United States Attorney

Leon W. Weidman

7 Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Civil Division

8 Russ Chittenden

Room 7516, Federal Bldg.

9 300 N. Los An...geles Street

Los Angele~ California 90012

10 Tel. (213) 8~4-0474

Fax. (2l3) 894-7819

II

I

Attorneys for Defendant

12

STIPULATION AND ORDER
13

14

Plaintiffs and Defendant, by and through their respective undersigne

15 counsel, have agreed on a New Class Definition, to be inserted into the Plaintiffs'
16
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, pursuant to this Court's August 29
17
18 2005 Order, and stipulate as follows:
19
Th'enew, agreed-upon Class Definition is as follows:
20
21 All aliens, including derivative beneficiaries, who invested in one of the 22 AIS Partnerships described in paragraphs 215 to 242 of the original 23 Ahn Complaint, who had an 1-526 petition approved by the Attorney 24 General after January 1, 1995 and before August 31, 1998, and were 25 granted conditional residence status pursuant to the Immigration and 26 Nationality Act (INA), section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), and who 27 timely filed, in accordance with INA § 216A(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 28 1186b(c)(I)(A), and before November 2, 2002, an 1-829 petition
requesting theiremoval of such conditional basis, and who have received

·2·

• Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW

Document 132

•Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 3

or will receive a denial of their permanent residency because they are 2 unable to comply with the investment and employment requirements 3 under INA §§ 203(b)(5) and 216A and existing regulations as a result of: 4 (1) the retroaktive application of the standards announced in Matter of 5 Izumii and its progeny; (2) the affirmative misconduct of the 6 Defendants in approving class members 1-526 petitions on which the 7 class members detrimentally relied; and/or (3) APA, abuse of discretion, 8 ultra vires, and due process and equal protection violations.
9 Dated: Thursday, October 06, 2005
10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 SO O-IRDERED.

•

L"""\,..

27

Y

HON. GEORGE H. I<.J:NI
28 United States District ~d~e
\...I

IRAJ.

,

(Stat a 0.: 1563)

K ban Kurzban Weinger & Tetzeli, PA 2650 S.W. 27'h Avenue, 2nd Floor

Miami, Florida 33133 Tel. (305) 444-0060/Fax. (305) 444-3503

r. ( Attorney for PlaintiffS;i

, If:

~./:J.r!h-

~i. f1IZ .AltI'-·....'1 IV'" I ". 4tfi
fA+ J,,'r

ANf l O i ICASTRO, ESQ.
Office ofImmigration Litigation
Civil Division

U.S. Department ofJustice P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel.: (202) 616-9358 Facsimile: (202) 616-4975 Attorney for Defendant

(t DATED: Va -+(0 J/

·3·

 
 Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 296 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:4645

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 99-10518 GHK (AJWx)

Title

Kyung Sook Ahn, et. al., -vs- USA, et. al.,

Date July 7, 2010

Present: The Honorable

GEORGE H. KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Ramirez Relief Deputy Clerk

None Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) TAKING OFF CALENDAR

On the Court’s own motion, Defendant’s motion to dismiss cause of action Seven (Doc # 290) and Plaintiff’s motion for Subclass Certification (Doc. # 291) currently scheduled for Monday, July 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m are hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. No appearance is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

:

Initials of Preparer

IR

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1

 
 Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 373 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:6782

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-Filed

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) CV 01-7382-GHK (AJWx)
Wen-Wan Chang, et al. v. United States of America Kyung Sook Ahn, et al. v. United States of America

Date September 27, 2012

Presiding: The Honorable

GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Beatrice Herrera Deputy Clerk

N/A Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: None

Attorneys Present for Defendants: None

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement

This matter is before us on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement (“Motion”) [Dkt. No. 364]. As the Parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we repeat them only as necessary. Accordingly, we rule as follows.

I. Conditional Class Certification

The Parties incorrectly state that we certified a general class in this case. On August 29, 2005, we declined to certify a class and ordered the Parties to jointly propose a class definition. [Dkt. No. 127]. We then approved a proposed order stipulating to a class definition on October 17, 2005, but we did not certify a class on that date. [Dkt. No. 132]. Despite the lack of clarity in subsequent Orders, we have only approved a class definition; we have not certified a class under Rule 23. As discussed at the September 24, 2012 hearing on Preliminary Approval, we therefore will treat the class definition in the Settlement Agreement as a request to conditionally certify the class for purposes of settlement. Accordingly, the Parties seek conditional certification of the following class:

All aliens, including derivative beneficiaries, who invested in one of the AIS Partnerships described in paragraphs 215 to 242 of the original AhCn omplaint, who had an I-526 petition approved by the Attorney General after January 1, 1995, and before August 31, 1998, and were granted conditional resident status pursuant to the Im migration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b) (5), and who timely filed, in accordance with INA section 216A(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(1)(A), and before November 2, 2002, an I-829 petition requesting the rem oval of such conditional basis, and who have received or will receive a denial of their permanent residency because they are unable to com ply with the investment and em ployment requirements under INA sections 203(b)(5) and 216A and existing regulations.

(Settlement Agmt. ¶ II.A.2 [Dkt. No. 363]).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 373 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:6783

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-Filed

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) CV 01-7382-GHK (AJWx)
Wen-Wan Chang, et al. v. United States of America Kyung Sook Ahn, et al. v. United States of America

Date September 27, 2012

A. Rule 23(a) Requirements

Rule 23(a) provides that

[o]ne or more members of a cla ss may sue . . . as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the clai ms or defenses of the class; and ( 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

1. Numerosity

There is no numerical cut-off to determine whether a class is sufficiently numerous. Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., ___ F.R.D. ___, 2012 WL 2250040, at *11 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “As a general rule, [however,] classes of 20 are too small, classes of 20-40 may or may not be big enough depending on the circumstances of each case, and classes of 40 or more are numerous enough.” Id.

The proposed class is sufficiently numerous to justify certification. Between the two consolidated actions, Chang and Ahn, there are potentially more than 400 class members who invested in AIS partnerships. Joinder of this many individuals in one suit would be impracticable. See Dutton v. Carolina Power, 2012 WL 2390012, at *3 (D. S.C. 2012) (“No specific number is needed to satisfy” the numerosity requirement; Plaintiff need only show that joinder is impracticable.).

2. Commonality

Commonality requires that class claims “depend upon a common contention . . . . That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution — which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011). Commonality does not require that all questions of law or fact raised in the litigation be common; so long as one issue affects all or most of the class members, class certification is proper. See, e.g., Steward v. Winter, 669 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1982).

The proposed class members share at least two common questions of law and fact. First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant should be estopped from denying the proposed class members’ I-829s because Defendant’s alleged affirmative misconduct was the sole cause of the members’ inability to

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 373 Filed 09/27/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:6784

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-Filed

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) CV 01-7382-GHK (AJWx)
Wen-Wan Chang, et al. v. United States of America Kyung Sook Ahn, et al. v. United States of America

Date September 27, 2012

comply with the investment and job preservation requirements. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant impermissibly sought to apply the Precedent Decisions retroactively to all members. These “common contentions” are capable of classwide resolution.

Accordingly, although there may be individual issues present, especially as to causation, there is sufficient commonality among the proposed class. See, e.g., Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1046 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Differences among class members with respect to the merits of their actual document fraud cases, however, are simply insufficient to defeat the propriety of class certification. What makes the plaintiffs’ claims suitable for a class action is the common allegation that the INS’s procedures provide insufficient notice.”).

3. Typicality

A class action is proper only where “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). “The test of typicality ‘is whether other members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same conduct.’” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). The class representative “must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members.” CRLA v. Legal Servs. Co., 917 F.2d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 1990).

The named Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, that Defendant impermissibly applied the Precedent Decisions retroactively and prevented Plaintiffs from being able to comply with the investment and job preservation requirements. As such, named Plaintiffs allege that their I-829 petitions, and the I-829 petitions of all proposed class members, will be denied by Defendant. Consequently, named Plaintiffs raise claims that are typical to the proposed class members.

4. Adequacy of Representation

Representation is adequate if the: (1) attorney representing the class is qualified and competent; and (2) class representatives do not have interests antagonistic to the remainder of the class. See Lerwill v. Inflight Motion Pictures, Inc., 582 F.2d 507, 512 (9th Cir. 1978); see also In re Mego Financial Corp. Securities Litigation, 213 F.3d 454, 462 (9th Cir. 2000).

Counsel adequately represents the class as they are private firms that specialize in immigration law, have litigated countless cases challenging practices of the INS, and have considerable experience in handling class action litigation. Additionally, another court has recognized Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Kurzban, as adequate counsel in an action challenging Defendant’s procedures. Tefel v. Reno, 972 F. Supp. 608, 617-18 (S.D. Fla. 1997).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 373 Filed 09/27/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:6785

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-Filed

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) CV 01-7382-GHK (AJWx)
Wen-Wan Chang, et al. v. United States of America Kyung Sook Ahn, et al. v. United States of America

Date September 27, 2012

Moreover, the named Plaintiffs do not appear to have interests antagonistic to the remainder of the class. They share typical claims and common questions of law or fact, and will receive the same treatment as the proposed class members under the Settlement Agreement’s process to adjudicate I829s. Thus, there is no apparent conflict of interest.

Accordingly, representation of the interests of the proposed class members is adequate.

B. Rule 23(b) Requirements

In addition to satisfying the mandatory prerequisites in Rule 23(a), Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that they meet one of the alternative requirements under Rule 23(b).

Here, certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. Rule 23(b)(2) requires a showing that Defendant “has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” WalMart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. at 2557; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). “Rule 23(b)(2) applies only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each member of the class. It does not authorize class certification when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment against the defendant.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. at 2557.

Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Defendant engaged in misconduct equally applicable to all proposed class members. Defendant’s alleged improper retroactive application of the Precedent Decisions and other alleged affirmative misconduct, therefore, constitutes a regulatory scheme common to all members of the class. Further, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that we order Defendant to adjudicate the class’s I-829s according to the Settlement’s terms. If we enter such Order, it will create an I-829 adjudication process that provides relief for each member of the class. This action therefore involves “injunctive relief” for which 23(b)(2) certification is proper.

The Settlement Agreement’s proposed class meets all the requirements for class certification under FRCP 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, we conditionally CERTIFY the class for purposes of settlement.

III. Preliminary Approval of Settlement

After considering all the relevant factors and the special nature of this case, we conclude that the proposed settlement is within the range of approvable settlements. Accordingly, the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED. The final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

IV. Conclusion
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 373 Filed 09/27/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:6786

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E-Filed

Case No. Title

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) CV 01-7382-GHK (AJWx)
Wen-Wan Chang, et al. v. United States of America Kyung Sook Ahn, et al. v. United States of America

Date September 27, 2012

In light of the foregoing, we conditionally CERTIFY the proposed class for purposes of settlement. Further, the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk

--

:

--

Bea

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 5

 
 Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:6790

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

CHANG,Wen-Wan, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

.............

No. CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into by and between Named Plaintiffs BUHLER, Albrecht; CHUANG, Hui Yu; CHUANG, Yu Te; HSU, Yu Fang; HUANG, Bi Chen; HUANG, Ta Lun; HUANG, Ta You; HUR, Kyu; HUR, Kyung Hwa; HUR, Myung Ok; HUR, Yool; KIM, Chung Nam; KONG, Sung Duck; KUO, Chin Hsin; LIN, Chin Ching; LIN, Ko Ting; LIN, Szu Yin; SU, Chun Chen; SU, Po-Lin; and SU, Po-Wei (the “Named Plaintiffs”) and the Class (defined in Section II.A. below) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant the United States of America (“Defendant”) (together with the Plaintiffs, the “Parties”), with reference to the facts recited herein.
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS:
Plaintiffs’ Participation in the EB-5 Program
1. The employment creation immigrant visa (“EB-5”) originated with the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT 90”), Public Law No. 101-649, and was intended to permit aliens to immigrate to the United States upon investment of a designated amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise that would benefit the United States economy and create at least ten qualifying jobs;
2. The EB-5 program was expanded by Public Law No. 102-395, which introduced a temporary “pilot program” for capital investments in designated “Regional Centers”;
3. Admission to the United States under the EB-5 program is conditioned upon making and sustaining the investment in the new commercial enterprise and demonstrating that
1 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:6791
the requisite number of qualifying jobs have been created or are expected to be created within a reasonable time;
4. In the mid-1990s, Plaintiffs sought to participate in the program through a series of investment vehicles in the expectation of qualifying for an immigration benefit;
5. Each of the Plaintiffs filed a Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (“Form I-526”), and each petition was approved by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) (succeeded here by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”));
6. American Immigration Services (“AIS”) was a private corporation that had recruited Plaintiffs and channeled their investments into limited partnerships; and
7. Although the INS considered the Plaintiffs’ proposed investments to be acceptable under the EB-5 program at the outset, and approved them as such, the INS ultimately issued a series of administrative precedent decisions1 (the “1998 precedent decisions”) holding that the type of investments that Plaintiffs made were unacceptable under the EB-5 laws.
The Litigation
8. Plaintiffs filed the pending lawsuit, captioned Chang, et al. v. United States, Case No. 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.) (the “Action”),2 against Defendant the United States of America on October 12, 1999, contending that reliance upon the 1998 precedent decisions represented an impermissible and retroactive application of law impacting their eligibility for removal of the conditions from their residence;
9. On May 4, 2001, the District Court dismissed as unripe the claims of all Plaintiffs but one, and denied the Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to that Plaintiff’s retroactivity claims. Both Plaintiffs and Defendant appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
10. The Ninth Circuit determined that rules announced in the 1998 precedent decisions could not be applied to the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Forms I-829, Petition to Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions (“Form I-829” or “Form I-829 Petition”) and remanded the Action to the District Court to determine whether Plaintiffs had complied with the investment plan described in their Forms I-526 and whether a class should be certified. See Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003);
11. On remand to the District Court, Plaintiffs amended their claims to include equitable estoppel theories asserting that Plaintiffs had made their investment plans relying on the approval of their I-526s, agency policy memoranda, and other INS decisions, assertions from
1 Matter of Ho, 22 I. & N. Dec. 206 (Assoc. Comm’r 1998); Matter of Hsuing, 22 I. & N. Dec. 201 (Assoc. Comm’r 1998); Matter of Izummi, 22 I. & N. Dec. 169 (Assoc. Comm’r 1998); Matter of Soffici, 22 I. & N. Dec. 158 (Assoc. Comm’r 1998). 2 Chang was consolidated with Ahn v. United States, Case No. 01-cv-07382 (C.D. Cal.).
2 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:6792
high-level INS officials that the investment plans were permissible, and that the passage of time and the intervening administrative precedent decisions had caused the Plaintiffs to abandon their efforts to comply with the investment plans contained in their Forms I-526;
12. On October 14, 2005, the District Court approved the Parties’ stipulation regarding certification of a Class, as defined in section II.A of this Agreement;
13. The Action remains pending before the District Court, and several legal and factual issues remain in dispute; and
14. USCIS contends that it cannot approve Plaintiffs’ Forms I-829 because Plaintiffs abandoned their efforts to comply with their investment plans and, therefore, have not complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements for removal of conditions. Plaintiffs dispute that position and argue they have complied with the approved investment plans and, in the alternative, were prevented from complying with the investment plans by INS.
Benefits of Settlement
15. The Parties recognize the need to draw to a close litigation of this Action, which has been pending for over a decade, and desire to resolve the Action by entering into this Agreement, thereby avoiding the time and expense of further litigation;
16. Plaintiffs, in consultation with their counsel, have determined that this Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of Plaintiffs; and
17. Defendant denies that it has committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability, and denies any wrongdoing or that grounds for equitable estoppel exist, and states that it is entering into this Agreement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. By entering into this Agreement, Defendant does not admit any factual allegations against it; does not admit having violated any law, whether constitutional or statutory, federal or state; and does not admit having violated any regulation or administrative case law.
II. TERMS AND SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE in recognition that the Parties and the interests of justice are best served by concluding the litigation, subject to the Court’s approval and entry of an order consistent with this Agreement, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the undersigned Parties, through counsel, as follows.
A. Definitions.
1. Action. “Action” means the consolidated lawsuit of Chang v. United States, No. 99-10518 (C.D. Cal.), and Ahn v. United States, Case No. 01-cv-07382 (C.D. Cal.).
3 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:6793
2. Class. The definition of the “Class” is as follows:
All aliens, including derivative beneficiaries, who invested in one of the AIS Partnerships described in paragraphs 215 to 242 of the original Ahn Complaint, who had an I-526 petition approved by the Attorney General after January 1, 1995, and before August 31, 1998, and were granted conditional resident status pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), and who timely filed, in accordance with INA section 216A(c)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(1)(A), and before November 2, 2002, an I-829 petition requesting the removal of such conditional basis, and who have received or will receive a denial of their permanent residency because they are unable to comply with the investment and employment requirements under INA sections 203(b)(5) and 216A and existing regulations.
3. Class counsel. “Class counsel” means counsel appointed to represent the Class in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
4. Class member. “Class member” means a member of the Class.
5. Court. “Court” means the District Court in Chang, et al. v. United States, Case No. 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.).
6. Fairness Hearing. “Fairness Hearing” means the hearing required for Final Approval of the settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and described at Section II.B.9. of this Agreement.
7. Preliminary Approval. “Preliminary Approval” means that the Court has granted the Parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement as described in section II.B.2 of this Agreement and ordered a Fairness Hearing.
B. Conditions and Approval of Settlement.
1. Effective Date of Agreement. This Agreement will become effective upon execution of the Agreement by all Parties and Preliminary Approval of the settlement.
2. Submission of the Settlement Agreement to Court for Preliminary Approval. Within fifteen (15) days after execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall apply to the Court for Preliminary Approval of the settlement. The Parties shall file a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval and Request for a Fairness Hearing, and shall attach a copy of this Agreement, the proposed Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions in the form of Exhibit [A] hereto, the proposed Notice to the Class, in the form of Exhibit [B] hereto, and such other documents that the Parties determine are necessary for the Court’s consideration. The parties further agree to file by that same time a joint motion to stay proceedings pending the Court’s consideration of the matter.
3. Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions. Provided the Court determines after a fairness hearing that this agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, within
4 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:6794
five (5) days after the Court’s approval of this agreement, Plaintiffs will file a Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions with the Court in the form of Exhibit [A] to this Agreement requesting that Defendant be ordered as a matter of equity in light of Plaintiffs’ prior efforts to satisfy the criteria of the EB-5 classification to approve the Form I-829 petitions of all Plaintiffs, except where the Defendant determines by clear and convincing evidence that in an individual case a Plaintiff made a willful material misrepresentation in his or her Form I-829 Petition or that a Plaintiff’s investment was made solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States, in which case the Form I-829 Petition may be denied for that individual Plaintiff. Defendant will not object to the Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions. The Parties agree to move jointly to stay further proceedings in the Action pending the Court’s consideration of the Motion to Order Adjudication, and, if the Motion is approved, pending completion of the activities described in section II.B.6(a)-(g) of this Agreement.
4. Effect of the Court’s Denial of the Agreement. If the Court rejects this Agreement, or otherwise finds that the Agreement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate, this Agreement shall become null and void.
5. Effect of Court’s Denial of Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions. If the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions described in Section II.B.3, this Agreement shall become null and void.
6. Defendant’s Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions Pursuant to Court Order:
(a) Subject to the Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions, Defendant agrees to favorably adjudicate each Plaintiff’s Form I-829s within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date identified in section 6(a)(i) below, and subject to the following provisions:
(i) The 120-day time period for adjudicating each Form I-829 petition begins on the day after a Plaintiff appears at a designated office and provides his or her biometric information for purposes of any required background check. However, if Defendant does not mail a request to Plaintiff to appear before USCIS to capture his or her biometric information, mailed pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 6(b)(i) below, within 15 days of receipt of Plaintiffs’ current mailing addresses pursuant to section 6(b)(i) below, Defendant must adjudicate the I-829 petition within one hundred twenty (120) days of the receipt of Plaintiff’s current mailing address, or if applicable, within the timeframe specified for reasonable cause determinations in section 6(b)(ii) below.
(ii) Defendant shall grant these Form I-829 petitions unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner made a willful material misrepresentation on his or her Form I-829, in the evidence supporting his or her Form I-829 petition, or the evidence establishing the initial source of funds; or that the petitioner’s investment was knowingly made solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States.
5 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:6795

(iii) The term “material misrepresentation” shall be defined consistent with Matter of Sand B-C-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436 (Att’y Gen. 1961).

(iv) Any finding by USCIS of a willful material misrepresentation referenced by (ii) above, or any finding by USCIS of a knowing evasion of the immigration laws referenced by (ii) above will be limited to the administrative record in connection with Plaintiffs’ Form I-829 petitions or the initial source of funds at the time of the Form I-829 adjudication and conducted in a manner consistent with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16), as codified in the 2012 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(v) Although USCIS may deny a Form I-829 petition consistent with section 6(a)(ii)-(iv), USCIS will not attribute to a Plaintiff any misrepresentation by AIS, or by anyone acting on behalf of AIS, including, but not limited to, any representation or documentation submitted with Plaintiffs’ I-526s or I-829s regarding the business plan, release of funds, promissory notes, or amount of funds invested as those and other documents and representations relate to the investment, job creation or partnerships, unless the administrative record indicates that the Plaintiff knew of the misrepresentation and knowingly participated in the misrepresentation. Defendant shall not deem Plaintiffs’ abandonment of their efforts to comply with the investment plans or job creation as set forth in their Forms I-526 or Forms I-829 as a material misrepresentation.

(vi) USCIS’s grant of an I-829 petition shall not limit the Government’s ability to institute removal proceedings against any alien in the event the alien is removable or deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227, or inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182, provided the Government’s initiation of removal proceedings is otherwise in compliance with the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, and this Agreement.

(vii) Subject to the “pattern and practice” provision in this Agreement, Plaintiffs may seek relief from the district court upon a showing that USCIS has improperly applied section 6(a)(i-vi).

(viii)

The conditional resident spouse or child of a principal investor, who is a plaintiff class member, whether the spouse is currently married to or divorced or widowed from the principal investor, and whether or not the child is now over 21 or married, shall have the condition removed on his or her residency under the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement whether or not the principal investor died or seeks removal of his or her conditional residency.

(b) In the event the Government alleges when adjudicating a Plaintiff’s Form I-829 that a Plaintiff engaged in a willful material misrepresentation or made an investment in the commercial enterprise solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States, the Government will provide to the Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) detailing the factual and legal basis for its claim that a willful material misrepresentation or a knowing
6 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:6796
evasion of the immigration laws has occurred and shall comply with the notice requirement described in Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle B, § 11031(c)(1)(F)(i) (Nov. 2, 2002). The Government will provide the Plaintiff with ninety (90) days from the date of the notice to rebut the derogatory information or otherwise provide evidence that the Government’s allegation of a willful material misrepresentation or willful evasion of the immigration laws is incorrect. Plaintiff’s response must be delivered within the 90-day response period to the address identified in the Government’s NOID. In response to a NOID, a Plaintiff may file any evidence that he or she finds appropriate and such evidence will be included in the administrative record. The adjudication of the I-829 will be based on the administrative record which will be comprised of the I-829 application and any documentation submitted in support of the application, any documentation the government provides to Plaintiff in conjunction with any NOID, and any response documents and argument submitted by the Plaintiff in response to any NOID.
i. Within 30 days after the Court approves this Agreement, all Plaintiffs will provide USCIS with their current mailing address, sent to the following: changclasssettlement@uscis.dhs.gov. In the event any Plaintiff changes his or her place of residence, he or she agrees to provide USCIS with the new address sent to the following: changclasssettlement@uscis.dhs.gov. In the event a Plaintiff fails to provide his or her current mailing address, as provided in this section, Defendant may mail any notices to the last address previously provided by that Plaintiff and such notice shall be deemed sufficient for purposes of this agreement and for purposes of calculating the 180-day time period described in section 6(b)(ii) below.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff fails to provide his or her biometric information within 180 days of USCIS’s request in writing for such information, Plaintiff shall be deemed to have abandoned his or her Form I-829 and USCIS may deny the Form I-829. However, if, within 180 days of any denial for lack of submission of the biometric information, Plaintiff provides reasonable cause for failure to appear for the taking of biometrics, the denial will be vacated, and USCIS will mail Plaintiff a new biometric request within 15 days of USCIS’s reasonable cause determination. USCIS will make the reasonable cause determination within 30 days of the receipt of Plaintiff’s reasonable cause claim. USCIS will then adjudicate the Form I-829 according to the timeframe and procedures in section 6(a)(i) above.
iii. If Plaintiff fails to respond to the Government’s NOID within ninety (90) days, the Government will deny, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the 90-day time period to respond, the Plaintiff’s Form I-829. In the event a Plaintiff’s failure to respond is due to circumstances beyond the control of the Plaintiff, he or she will file a request to consider a late filed response with USCIS setting forth the reasons for the untimely filing along with evidence in response to the NOID. USCIS may consider the untimely filed response and may provide relief from the denial of the Plaintiff’s Form I-829, but the Plaintiff shall not seek administrative or judicial review of the Government’s
7 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:6797
determination not to accept an untimely response. In no case may a Plaintiff file a request to consider a late filed document more than 180 days after the date a response to the original NOID was due.
iv. If Plaintiff’s rebuttal to the Government’s NOID fails to cause the Government to reverse its finding of a willful material misrepresentation or finding that the investment in the commercial enterprise was intended solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States, the Government will deny Plaintiff’s Form I-829 within 60 days of receipt of the response, and place Plaintiff and his or her spouse and children, if any, into removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear within thirty (30) days thereafter. Plaintiff may request a review of the Government’s willful material misrepresentation finding or finding that the investment in the commercial enterprise was intended solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States in removal proceedings, as provided under Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle B, § 11031(d) (Nov. 2, 2002) . The Government shall have the burden of proof in the proceeding. If the government does not deny the I-829 within the 60 days of receipt of the NOID response, the I-829 will be deemed approved as of the 61st day from receipt of the NOID response.
v. The Government may deny any Plaintiff’s Form I-829, and may place any Plaintiff and his or her spouse and children in removal proceedings, in accordance with the terms of this agreement notwithstanding section 11033 of Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle B (Nov. 2, 2002), and Plaintiffs waive any rights or benefits under Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle B (Nov. 2, 2002), except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. DHS shall continue the conditional basis of the Plaintiff’s permanent resident status (and that of the Plaintiff’s spouse and children) at least during the pendency of a direct administrative appeal of a final removal order arising from such removal proceedings.
(c) The Parties agree that a denial of a Plaintiff’s I-829 based on the Government’s finding of a material misrepresentation or knowing evasion of the immigration laws may be reviewed in removal proceedings, as provided under Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title 1, Subtitle B, §11031(d) (Nov. 2, 2002), and 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(b)(2). Each Plaintiff may also exercise his right to any administrative appellate review that may be available to a Plaintiff with the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Parties further agree that judicial review of a Plaintiff’s final order of removal is limited to a petition for review with the appropriate circuit court of appeals, as provided under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, except that the district court in this case shall retain jurisdiction to review any pattern or practice violation by Defendant of Plaintiffs’ rights under this agreement.
(d) Following approval of a Plaintiff’s Form I-829, the Defendant shall remove the conditions from the Plaintiff’s lawful permanent resident status, and Plaintiff will enjoy all the rights and duties that unconditional status entails. Consistent with that status, Defendant agrees
8 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:6798
not to seek to exclude, deport, or remove any Plaintiff for failure to satisfy the requirements of the EB-5 program based on evidence available at the time of adjudication of Plaintiff’s Form I829. In adjudicating Plaintiffs’ applications for naturalization, the Defendant will consider the removal of conditions consistent with the terms of this Agreement to satisfy the requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1429 that an applicant for naturalization “has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions” of the INA. Defendant may deny a Plaintiff’s application for naturalization, seek exclusion, deportation, or removal of a Plaintiff or take any other action under the INA or the criminal laws of the United States based on any ground of inadmissibility, deportability, or removability under the INA, except as to any matter arising out of or directly relating to the Plaintiff’s approved Form I-526 or Form I-829. Any Plaintiff, including his or her spouse and children, whose N-400 application has been denied may refile a new N-400 application, but no Plaintiff, including his or her spouse and children, shall be required to submit a new filing fee for the filing, receipt, or adjudication of the new N-400 application. Defendants shall not adjudicate any Plaintiff’s pending N-400 application while his or her I-829 is pending, and Defendant shall not deny a pending N-400 application on the ground that the Plaintiff was not eligible to file for naturalization as a conditional permanent resident.
(e) Any Plaintiff whose Form I-829 Petition is denied pursuant to the Court’s order and section II.B.6(c) of this Agreement shall retain only those administrative appellate and judicial review rights provided under section II.B.6(b), (c) and (d) of this Agreement. Except as provided in this Agreement, Plaintiffs waive any recourse to the remedies provided in Public Law No. 107-273, Div. C, Title I, Subtitle B, §§ 11031-34 (Nov. 2, 2002).
(f) Each and every Plaintiff shall waive his or her right to assert any and all claims that have previously been asserted against the Defendant in the Action. An individual Plaintiff may only challenge USCIS’s finding of a willful material misrepresentation or a knowing evasion of the immigration laws made pursuant to this agreement in administrative proceedings and through a petition for review of a final order of removal filed with the appropriate court of appeals, as provided in section II.B.6(c).
(g) Upon Defendant’s completion of the adjudication of all Plaintiffs’ Form I-829 Petitions, Plaintiffs will file with the Court a motion to dismiss the Action with prejudice, within twenty-one (21) days after Defendant certifies that it has adjudicated all of Plaintiffs’ Form I-829 Petitions. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to review requests to enforce the terms of this Agreement pursuant to section II.B.6(c) above.
7. Plaintiffs’ Waiver of Any and All Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of their heirs, representatives, and successors hereby release and forever discharge Defendant and its officers, agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns from any and all claims and demands for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, or any other feeshifting statute, for this Action and any related prior litigation, including but not limited to Ahn v. United States, No. 01-cv-07382 (C.D. Cal.), and all district court and court of appeals litigation culminating in Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2003). However, should Plaintiffs
9 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:6799
need to seek assistance from the Court to enforce compliance with the terms of this Agreement pursuant to section II.B.6(c) above and prevail in such an action, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to seek an award of fees and costs related to the proceedings to enforce this agreement from the Court under the standards set forth in the Equal Access to Justice Act.
8. Waiver of Appeal. If the Court enters an order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions, Plaintiffs and Defendants both agree to waive appeal of the order, subject to the Parties’ reservations of rights described in section II.B.6 of this Agreement.
9. Fairness Hearing. At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties will jointly request that the Court approve the settlement as final, fair, reasonable, adequate and binding on all Plaintiffs.
10. Objections to Settlement. Within seven (7) days following the Court’s Preliminary Approval of the Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel will issue to all class members the Notice to the Class, attached in the form of Exhibit B of this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of the Notice to the Class, any Plaintiff who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of this Agreement or the settlement contemplated herein must file with the Clerk of Court and serve on the Parties a statement of objection setting forth the specific reason(s), if any, for the objection, including any legal support or evidence in support of the objection, grounds to support his or her status as a Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The parties will have thirty (30) days following the objection period in which to submit answers to any objections that are filed. The notice to the Clerk of the Court shall be sent to: Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and both the envelope and letter shall state “Attention: Chang v. U.S., Case No. CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx).” Copies shall also be served on counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendants as set forth in the Notice to Class, Exhibit B. If any Plaintiff wishes to opt out of the class and, thus, the settlement, he or she must submit a letter or postcard to class counsel (Mr. Ira Kurzban, 2650 SW 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33133) within 30 days of issuance of the Notice to the Class.
11. Final Approval. The Court’s Final Approval of the settlement set forth in this Agreement shall consist of its orders granting each of the Parties’ requests made in connection with the Fairness Hearing, as described in section II.B.9 of this Agreement, and its order granting Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the Action with prejudice, except for those aspects of the case over which the Court shall retain jurisdiction as set forth in this Agreement.
C. Miscellaneous Provisions.
1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the Exhibit(s), constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the Action and claims released or discharged by the Agreement, and supersedes all prior discussions, agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the Parties in connection therewith.
2. No modification. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is contained in writing and signed by or on behalf of Plaintiffs and Defendant.
10 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:6800
3. Full and Final Settlement. The Parties intend that the execution and performance of this Agreement shall, as provided above, be effective as a full and final settlement of and shall fully dispose of all claims and issues that Plaintiffs raise against Defendant in the Action. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is fully binding upon them during the life of the Agreement.
4. Notices. All notices required or permitted under or pertaining to this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by any method providing proof of delivery. Any notice shall be deemed to have been completed upon mailing. Notices shall be delivered to the Parties at the following addresses until a different address has been designated by notice to the other Party:
TO PLAINTIFFS:
Ira J. Kurzban Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt, PA. 2650 S.W. 27th Ave., 2d Floor Miami, FL 33133
Marc Van Der Hout Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 180 Sutter Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
TO DEFENDANT:
Geoffrey Forney Senior Litigation Counsel United States Department of Justice 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
5. Opportunity to Review. The Parties acknowledge and agree that they have reviewed this Agreement with legal counsel and agree to the particular language of the provisions herein. In the event of an ambiguity in or dispute regarding the interpretation of the Agreement, interpretation of the Agreement shall not be resolved by any rule providing for interpretation against the drafter. The Parties expressly agree that in the event of an ambiguity or dispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement, the Agreement will be interpreted as if each Party hereto participated in the drafting hereof.
6. Construction of Agreement. This Agreement involves compromises of the Parties’ previously stated legal positions in connection with the Action. Accordingly, this Agreement does not reflect upon the Parties’ views as to the rights and obligations with respect to matters or persons outside of the scope of this Agreement.
11 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:6801
7. Execution of Other Documents. Each party agrees to execute and deliver such other documents and instruments and to take further action as may be reasonably necessary to fully carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
8. No Precedential Value. This Agreement is for the sole purpose of settling all claims in connection with the Action, and for no other purpose. Accordingly, the Parties agree that this Agreement, the negotiations surrounding the Agreement, and any evidence relating thereto shall not constitute, be construed as, or offered or received into evidence as, an admission of any wrongdoing by, or liability of, any Party hereto and shall not be admissible in any suit, action, administrative proceeding, or other proceeding, except as shall be necessary to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
9. Headings. The Parties agree the captions or underlined paragraph headings in this Agreement are included in the Agreement solely for the convenience of the Parties, are not part of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, and do not limit, alter, or otherwise affect the provisions of, and the Parties’ rights and obligations under, this Agreement.
10. Compliance/Dispute Resolution. In the event that either party to this Agreement alleges that the other party has failed to comply with the terms of this Agreement, either with respect to the class or to an individual Plaintiff, the complaining party shall inform the other party in writing of the specific grounds upon which non-compliance is alleged. The party alleged to have failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement shall investigate the alleged noncompliance, take any appropriate steps required to resolve the non-compliance concerning each individual case, and report the results of such investigation, including what steps, if any, were taken to resolve the non-compliance, in writing to the other party’s undersigned counsel within twenty (20) business days of the date on which the party alleged to have failed to comply with the Agreement was notified. The parties agree to make good faith attempts to resolve all issues informally; however, if the dispute cannot be resolved informally within thirty (30) days of the date on which the party alleged to have failed to comply with the Agreement was notified of the alleged non-compliance, either party may apply to the Court for enforcement of the Agreement, inform the Court of their disagreement, and seek mediation of any dispute through the Court’s auspices. If, within seven (7) days following a scheduled mediation session, the parties have resolved any issue regarding non-compliance, the complaining party must provide the other party a written statement that the issue has been resolved. If, within seven days following a scheduled mediation session, the parties have not resolved any issue regarding non-compliance, either party may apply to the Court for enforcement of the Agreement, but in no case shall either party seek contempt or sanctions to enforce the Agreement.
11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the United States without respect to the law of any particular State.
12 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375 Filed 10/05/12 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:6802

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement, which may be executed in counterparts and the undersigned represent that they are authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the respective Parties.

Consented and agreed to by:

s/ Ira J. Kurzban Ira J. Kurzban Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt, PA. 2650 S.W. 27th Ave., 2d Floor Miami, FL 33133

Date: August 13, 2012

s/Marc Van Der Hout Marc Van Der Hout Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Date: August 13, 2012

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Stuart F. Delery Acting Assistant Attorney General

William H. Orrick, III Deputy Assistant Attorney General

s/ Geoffrey Forney Geoffrey Forney Senior Litigation Counsel United States Department of Justice 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001

Date: August 13, 2012

Counsel for Defendant

13 | Settlement Agreement Chang, et al. v. United States, 99-cv-10518 (C.D. Cal.)

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-1 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:6803

1 Ira J. Kurzban, Esquire (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
2 2650 S.W. 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor 3 Miami, Florida 33133
Tel. (305) 444-0060
4
5 Marc Van Der Hout, Esquire (State Bar No.: 80778) Van Der Hout, Brigagliano, & Nightingale LLP
6
180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor 7 San Francisco, CA 94104 8 Tel. (415) 981-3000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

13 CHANG, Wen-Wan, et al., Plaintiffs,

14

v.

: Case No.: CV 99-10518: GHK(AJWx)1 :

15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

16

Defendant.

: Motion to Order Adjudication of : Form I-829 Petitions :

17

: Before: Hon. George H. King

18

: Date:

: Time:

19

:

20
Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an order requiring the
21

22 Defendant as a matter of equity, in light of Plaintiffs’ prior efforts to satisfy the

23 criteria of the EB-5 immigrant investor visa classification, to adjudicate the
24
25 pending Form I-829 petitions of all Plaintiffs. All petitions shall be approved

26 except where the Defendant determines by clear and convincing evidence,
27
28 1 The instant case has been consolidated with Ahn v. United States, Case No.: CV 01-07382-GHK(AJWx).

-1-

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-1 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:6804

1 consistent with the attached Settlement Agreement in this case, that in an

2 individual case:

3
(i) a petitioner made a willful material misrepresentation on his or her
4

5

Form I-829, in the evidence supporting his or her Form I-829, or in the

6
evidence establishing the initial source of funds; or

7

8

(ii) that a petitioner’s investment was knowingly made solely as a means of

9

evading the immigration laws of the United States,

10
in which case the Form I-829 Petition may be denied. All adjudications of
11

12 Plaintiffs’ I-829 Petitions shall be governed by the attached Settlement

13
Agreement, which Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to incorporate by
14
15 reference in its order.

16

The Defendant does not object to this motion.

17

18

19 DATE:
20 21 22

Respectfully Submitted, By:/s/Ira. J. Kurzban

23

Ira J. Kurzban (State Bar No.: 71563)

24

Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli & Pratt,

25

P.A.

2650 S.W. 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor

26

Miami, Florida 33133

27

Tel. (305) 444-0060

Fax. (305) 444-3503

28

E-Mail: ira@kkwtlaw.com

-2-

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-1 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:6805

1

2

Marc Van Der Hout (State Bar No.: 80778)

Van Der Hout, Brigagliano, & Nightingale LLP

3

180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor

4

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel. (415) 981-3000

5

Fax: (415) 981-3003

6

E-Mail: mv@vblaw.com

7
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3-

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-1 Filed 10/05/12 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:6806

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

3

I, Ira J. Kurzban, the undersigned, say:

4
I am over the age of eighteen year s and not a party to the within 5 action or proceedings; my business addre ss is: Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, 6 Tetzeli & Pratt, P.A., 2650 S.W. 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33133.

7

On XXX, I served the within:

8

9

Proposed Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions

10 on each person or e ntity named below by up loading an electronic version of this 11 document to the Court’s ECF system:

12 Attorney for Defendant

Office of Immigration Litigation

13

Civil Division

14

U.S. Department of Justice

15

450 5th Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20001

16

Tel: 202-532-4329

17

E-Mail: Geoff.Forney@usdoj.gov

18

19

Executed on the XXX day of XXX, at Mi ami, Florida. I declare under

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

20

21

By:___/s/ Ira. J. Kurzban________________

22

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.

23

Declarant

24

25

26

27

28

-4-

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-1 Filed 10/05/12 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:6807

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

4 CHANG, Wen-Wan, et al., Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

7

Defendant.

8

9

10

11

: : : : Case No.: CV 99-10518: GHK(AJWx)2 : : (PROPOSED) ORDER : GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ : UNOPPOSED MOTION TO : ORDER ADJUDICATION OF
FORM I-829 PETITIONS

12

13

14

Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829 Petitions

15 is GRANTED. Defendant shall adjudicate all Plaintiffs’ I-829 Petitions in
16
17 accordance with the attached Settlement Agreement.

18

19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20

21 Dated: XXX , 2012.

22 ________________________________________

23

Hon. George H. King

United States District Judge
24

25

26

27
28 2 The instant case has been consolidated with Ahn v. United States, Case No.: CV 01-07382-GHK(AJWx).

-5-

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:6808
Date: October 10, 2012
Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement
To: Members of the “Settlement Class” which includes all aliens, plus derivative beneficiaries, who:
(i) invested in a designated American Immigration Services (AIS) Partnership; and
(ii) had an I-526 petition approved by the United States government after January 1, 1995, and before August 31, 1998; and
(iii) were granted conditional resident status pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 203(b)(5); and
(iv) who timely filed, in accordance with INA section 216A(c)(1)(A), and before November 2, 2002, an I-829 petition requesting the removal of such conditional basis; and
(v) who have received or will receive a denial of their permanent residency by the United States because they are unable to comply with the investment and employment requirements under INA sections 203(b)(5) and 216A and existing regulations.
There is now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Central California a class action titled Chang v. United States, No. 99-10518 and Ahn v. United States, No. 01-07382. A settlement has been proposed in the class action which will provide for a new review of Settlement Class members’ applications for lawful permanent residence. If you qualify as a Settlement Class member, you may participate in the new review, or you can exclude yourself from the settlement, or object to it.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California authorized this notice. Before any reviews are undertaken, the Court will have a “Fairness Hearing” to decide whether to approve the settlement. The hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2013 at 9:00 am before the Honorable George H. King, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Central District of California in Court Room 650 at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
1

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:6809
What This Action Is About
Plaintiffs filed the pending lawsuit against Defendant the United States of America on October 12, 1999, contending that the government could not rely on administrative decisions issued after their applications for lawful permanent residence were filed to deny them immigration benefits. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their claims to assert that they made their investments relying on government actions and assurances that their investment plans were permissible, and that the passage of time and the intervening administrative decisions caused Plaintiffs to abandon their efforts to comply with the investment plans. On October 14, 2005, the District Court approved the definition of the Settlement Class. The class action remains pending before the District Court.
The Proposed Settlement
The parties have agreed to the settlement generally described below. If the settlement is finally approved, the following benefits will result:
(a) The parties will ask the Court to order the new reviews to begin. The United States agrees to abide by a Court order to adjudicate each Plaintiff’s pending Form I-829 petition favorably within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the day after a Plaintiff appears at a designated office and provides his or her biometric information for purposes of any required background check. Favorable adjudication is subject to the following provisions:
(i) The United States shall grant these petitions unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that a petitioner made a willful material misrepresentation on his or her Form I-829, in the evidence supporting his or her Form I-829, or in the evidence establishing the initial source of funds; or that
(ii) the petitioner’s investment was knowingly made solely as a means of evading the immigration laws of the United States.
The United States will not attribute to a Plaintiff any misrepresentation by AIS, or by anyone acting on behalf of AIS, including, but not limited to, any representation or documentation submitted with Plaintiffs’ I-526s or I-829s regarding the business plan, release of funds, promissory notes, or amount of funds invested as those and other documents and representations relate to the investment, job creation or partnerships, unless the administrative record indicates that the Plaintiff knew of the misrepresentation and knowingly participated in the misrepresentation.
2

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:6810
Defendant shall not deem Plaintiffs’ abandonment of their efforts to comply with the investment plans or job creation as set forth in their Forms I-526 or Forms I829 as a material misrepresentation.
(b) In the event the United States alleges a willful material misrepresentation or knowing evasion of the immigration laws of the United States, the United States will provide to the affected Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Deny detailing the factual and legal basis for its claim. The United States will provide the Plaintiff with ninety (90) days from the date of the notice to rebut the derogatory information or otherwise provide contrary evidence.
(c) The United States’ final denial of a Plaintiff’s I-829 may be reviewed in removal proceedings, with the possibility of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A Plaintiff may further appeal to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals if the BIA issues an adverse decision. The District Court may review any pattern or practice violation by the United States of Plaintiffs’ rights under the settlement agreement. The United States shall continue the conditional basis of a Plaintiff’s permanent resident status (and that of the Plaintiff’s spouse and children), at least during the pendency of a direct administrative appeal of a final removal order arising from such removal proceedings.
(d) Following approval of a Plaintiff’s Form I-829, the United States shall remove the conditions from the Plaintiff’s lawful permanent resident status, and the Plaintiff will enjoy all the rights and duties that unconditional status entails. Consistent with that status, the United States agrees not to seek to exclude, deport, or remove any Plaintiff for failure to satisfy investment requirements based on evidence available at the time of adjudication of the Plaintiff’s Form I-829. In adjudicating Plaintiffs’ future applications for naturalization, the United States will consider the removal of lawful permanent resident conditions to satisfy the requirement of INA § 318 that an applicant for naturalization “has been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence in accordance with all applicable provisions.”
(e) The United States will hold any Plaintiff’s application for citizenship (N-400 naturalization applications) if it is pending until the Plaintiff becomes an unconditional lawful permanent resident. For those Plaintiffs whose applications for naturalization were denied previously, they will be allowed to refile the applications without an additional fee.
3

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:6811
In return for these benefits, all Plaintiffs who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will waive their rights to assert any and all claims that have previously been asserted against the United States in the class action (an individual Plaintiff may only challenge the United States’ finding, under the settlement agreement, of a willful material misrepresentation or a knowing evasion of the immigration laws).
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
As a condition of settlement, the Settlement Class will forego all claims and demands for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, or any other fee-shifting statute, for the class action and any related prior litigation. However, should any Plaintiff need to seek assistance from the District Court to enforce compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement and prevail, Plaintiff shall be entitled to seek an award of fees and costs related to the proceedings to enforce the agreement from the Court under the standards set forth in the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Fairness Hearing
On January 14, 2013 at 9:00 am a hearing will be held before the Honorable George H. King, Chief Judge of the United States District Court, Central District of California in Court Room 650 at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. At the hearing, the District Court will consider any objections and arguments concerning the fairness of the proposed settlement.
What You Can Do
You have the right to exclude yourself from both the class action and the settlement:
•If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class: you must submit a letter or postcard postmarked no later than 30 days from the date of this notice, with your name, address, and telephone number. To be considered valid, a request for exclusion must set forth all of this information and must be timely received. Your request must be sent to class counsel at the following address:
4

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:6812
Ira J. Kurzban Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli & Pratt, PA. 2650 S.W. 27th Ave., 2d Floor Miami, FL 33133
If you wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you are advised that you will receive none of the benefits of the proposed settlement and will need to litigate any further claims on your own. You are also advised that the attorneys who have represented the class to date believe that this is a beneficial settlement for the class which represents an excellent opportunity to secure permanent residency for most class members and their derivative spouses and children, if any. If you timely request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be excluded from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the judgment entered in the class action, and you will not be precluded from otherwise prosecuting any individual claim, if timely, against the United States.
•If you object to the settlement, but do not wish to exclude yourself from the class action: you may intervene in the class action and/or object to the terms of the settlement. If your objection is rejected, you will be bound by the final judgment just as if you had not objected.
Any Settlement Class member who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the proposed settlement must file within thirty (30) days of this Notice’s issuance date, with the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and serve on the Parties a statement of objection, setting forth the specific reason(s), if any, for the objection, including any legal support or evidence in support of the objection, grounds to support his or her status as a Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The parties will have thirty (30) days following the objection period in which to submit answers to any objections that are filed. Your notice setting for the your objections shall be sent to counsel for the parties and to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Your Notice of Objections, should be sent to all the below and both the envelope and letter shall state Attention: Chang v. U.S, Case No. CV 99-10518-GHK (AJWx):
Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 375-2 Filed 10/05/12 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:6813
TO PLAINTIFFS: Ira J. Kurzban Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt, PA. 2650 S.W. 27th Ave., 2d Floor Miami, FL 33133 Marc Van Der Hout Van Der Hout, Brigagliano & Nightingale, LLP 180 Sutter Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 TO DEFENDANT: Geoffrey Forney Senior Litigation Counsel United States Department of Justice 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
**Please do not address any questions about the settlement or the litigation to the clerk of the Court or to the judge**
6

 
 ..

..... .. ~-C~ ase 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 59 Filed 05/04/01 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:45 ...,.t

THIS CONSTITUT.OTICE OF ENTRY

• 1

AS REQUIRED BY FRCP, Rt1jlf. 77(d). .

~~r 2

'

' • l-

_Priority
..J.L'Send

3

-l,./.JS-5/

_ JS·2/J ·3

4

FILED

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

5

\-1\A'( '200!

6

,··~,'\ IW-4

7

~ENTifiRALiiiio\iiiiS;T;TR;;;:IC~T;:;/;,4::~

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
qq- 1051 B,.----=,.....,,.-_;;...-.;.,:-··~

11 WEN-WAN CHANG, et al.

12

Plaintiffs,

13

vs.

)

CV 9 9 10 51 r'"t...'lI'.!1X:Ri.K!~1);-l'igN~JO.J!;SATERDICT COUflT.

) )

I:NTI'lWD

) JUDGMENT

MA~ -7 2001

)

)

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

CALIFORNIA DEPUTY

15

Defendant.

16

)
lf~oo·te' d ~~~ ·

17 ------------------------__ JS-5/~.

- JS · 2/ JS·3

18

By separate minute order da.t:.e.dotlSf) 2, 2001, Defendant's

19 motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted in part and denied in

20 part.

21

It is hereby ADJUDGED, DECREED and ORDERED that as to all parties

22 except Plaintiff Chiang (the other six named Plaintiffs and the

23 Partnership Plaintiffs), Defendant's motion for judgment on the

24 pleadings is granted without prejudice as to Counts One through Four,

25 Six and Seven because these claims are not ripe for adjudication as to

26 the six named individual Plaintiffs and because the Partnership

27 Plaintiffs lack standing to assert such claims. As to Plaintiff

28 Chiang, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is

• • ' - ot·

C.., ..a.. s-:ce.
"'

2.. :"9' 9-cv-10518-GHK-AJW

Document 59

Filed 05/04/01

Page 2 of 2

Page ID #:46

1 with regard to Counts One, Three, Six and those parts of

2 Counts Two and Four which do not involve the retroactivity claim, with

3 prejudice. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is

4 granted without prejudice as to Count Five. As to Plaintiff Chiang,

5 Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied without

6 prejudice as to Counts Two, Four (insofar as they implicate the

7 improper retroactive application claim) and Seven, and Plaintiff

8 Chiang's improper retroactive application claim is remanded to the INS

9 for due consideration and compilation of an administrative record

10 consistent with the May 2, 2001 order.
11

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: May 3, 2001 14 15

I
George H. King United States Di

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 115 Page ID #:3967

1 Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzba!J<,Kur;r;ban, Wein~~r & Tetzeli, P.A.
2 2650 S. w. 27 Avenue, Z" Floor Miami, Florida 33133
3 Tel. (305) 444-0060 Fax. (305) 444-3503
4
Marc VanDer Rout, Esq. (State Bar No.: 80778) 5 VanDer Rout, Briga_gliano, & Nightingale LLP
180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor 6 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel. (415) 981-3000 7 Fax. (415) 981-3003

·"-<"

(") ·0-

1"'-.:)

r

Mlr:
;,:::·:ry
,- -4 .)1'.: c•c ,>- V>

t:.-::.J
~
""),...-..
-<

]> C''}CJ

IJ

:~. r.· r..

, ". '

·-<
.

r
Pl

r; "~ -:-,

' c

---1

0

;. (,

--.

0

r:_.

.,; .,. r~ .

U1 -..J

-i

8 Stacy Tolchin, Esg. VanDer Rout, Brigagliano, & Nightingale LLP
9 634 S. Spring Street #714 Los Angeles CA 900 14
10 Tel. (21"3) 612-7450 Fax. (213) 622-7233
ll
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

~j'

14

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

·.

I

15 BUHLER, Albrecht

Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx)'

16 CHANG, Chiao Ying

17 CHANG, Tsung Wei 18 CHANG, Wei Ting 19 CHANG, Wen Wan

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF: CLASS ACTION

2o CHUANG, Hui Yu

21 CHUANG, Yu Te 22 HSU, Chi Fang 23 HSU, Yu Fang 24 HUANG, Bi Chen 25 HUANG, Ta Lun

26
27 1 The instant case has been consolidated with Ahn v. United States, Case No.: CV 01-07382-GHK(AJWx).
28

1

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 115 Page ID #:3968

1 HUANG, Ta You

2 HUR,Kyu

3 HUR, Kyung Hwa

4 HUR, Myung Ok

5 HUR, Yool

6 KIM, Choong Nam

1 KONG, Sung Duck

8 KUO, Chin Hsin

9 LIN, Chin Ching

10 LIN, Ko Ting

11 LIN, Szu Yin

12 SU, Chun Chen

n SU, Po-Lin

14 SU, Po-Wei

1s WANG WONG, Yuk Lan,

16

Plaintiffs,

17

vs.

18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

19

Defendant.

20

21

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, sue the Defendant an

22
allege as follows:
23

24

I. INTRODUCTION

25

1. Plaintiffs and the class members ("Investor Plaintiffs" or "Plaintiffs"

26

27 seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the Defendant, the United States o

28

11

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 115 Page ID #:3969

1 America, and its agents to approve their applications for status as lawful permanen

2 residents as investors under 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5) ("Immigrant Investor Law" o

I
'

3
"Immigrant Investment Program") and to prohibit the Defendant and its agents,
4

5 from retroactively applying new rules and requirements in connection with thos

6
applications.

7

8

2. The Immigration and Naturalization Act ("INA") of 1990, Sectio

9 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(5), created a new preference allocation of visas
10
("EB-5 visas") for immigrants who have invested, or are in the process o
11
12 investing, a designated amount of lawfully obtained capital in commercial

13
enterprises, and can demonstrate the investment will benefit the United State
14
15 economy and create, or save, ten or more jobs for qualified United States workers.

16 Under the Immigrant Investor Law, qualified immigrant investors may obtai
17
lawful permanent residence in the United States for themselves and thei
18

!9 dependents.
20
3. One part of the Immigrant Investor Program, the Immigrant Investo
21
22 Pilot Program ("Pilot Program"), was established in order to encourage immigrants

23 to pool their capital and invest in "regional centers," which are designated publi
24
25 and private economic units involved in the promotion of economic growth,

26 including "increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation,
27

28

1

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 4 of 115 Page ID #:3970

and increased domestic capital investment." 8 C.P.R. § 204.6(e). The Pilo

2 Program allows an investor in a regional center to demonstrate indirect job

3
creation, relaxing the requirement that the investor create 10 jobs.
4

5

4. For consideration as an immigrant investor, or alien entrepreneur, a

6 individual must file an I-526 petition with supporting documentation showing th
7
8 investor has placed the required amount of capital at risk in a commercia

9 enterprise. Once the I-526 (Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur) is
10
approved, an immigrant investor may obtain status as a lawful conditional residen
11
12 by filing an I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status)

13
if residing in the United States or by applying for an immigrant visa if residin
14
15 abroad.

16

5. In order to lift the conditional resident status and become a fulllawfu

17
permanent resident, an immigrant investor must file an I-829 (Petition b
18

19 Entrepreneur to Remove Condition) within 90 days before the second anniversary
20
of the immigrant investor's admission to the United States as a conditiona
21
22 resident. The l-526 petition sets forth the immigrant investor's investment plan. I

23 the inlmigrant investor in good faith maintains the investment that was previously
24
25 approved in the I-526 investment plan for two years, absent any fraud or any

26 impermissible or significant change rendering the commercial enterprise o
27

28

2

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 5 of 115 Page ID #:3971

petitioner unqualified, the Service must approve the I-829 petition. This cas
1

2 addresses the failure ofthe Defendant to approve Plaintiffs' and class members' I

3
829 applications.
4

5

6. Plaintiffs to this action include individual immigrant investors, the·

6 spouses, and dependents. The Investor Plaintiffs invested substantial amounts o
7
8 assets in various partnerships through American Immigration Services ("AIS" o

9 "Partnerships"). Each Plaintiff invested the requisite amount and became

10
conditional resident.
II

12

7. On the basis of their investments, Investor Plaintiffs filed I-52

13
petitions for classification as alien entrepreneurs. Defendant and its agents
14
15 reviewed each of the Investor Plaintiffs' I-526 petitions. Defendant approved all o

16 the Investor Plaintiffs' I-526 petitions. Plaintiffs were granted the status, authority,
17
and permission to enter the United States as conditional residents. Many Plaintiffs
18

19 sold their homes and businesses to immigrate to the United States and pursue thei
20
new lives and investments. The Investor Plaintiffs relied on (1) the conditiona
21
22 grant of lawful status; (2) the Defendant's rules, interpretations, and procedures;

23 and (3) the Defendant's representations, promises, and assurances that th
24
25 investments fully complied with the law and qualified them for lawful permanen

26 residence in the United States.
27

28

3

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 115 Page ID #:3972

8. In reliance on the previous official approval of their I-526 investmen

2 plans, Investor Plaintiffs timely filed I-829 petitions to remove the conditions o
3
their lawful permanent residence. Some Investor Plaintiffs have already receive
4
5 formal notice from the Defendant that those I-829 petitions to remove th

6 conditions of their residency were denied. Some other Investor Plaintiffs have bee
7
8 denied but never received formal notice of the denials. Other Investor Plaintiffs

9 have filed their I-829 applications and will receive a formal notice of denial fro
10
the Defendant during the course of this litigation. Not one adjudicated I-82
11
12 petition of a Plaintiff, who is a partner in AIS, has been approved. All fully

13
adjudicated applications have been denied.
14

15

9. Plaintiffs were granted conditional lawful permanent residence base

16 on the law, regu1ations, requirements, and rules relating to the Immigrant Investo
17
Program then in existence. Subsequently, the Defendant, more specifically th
18

19 legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, now known as the United States
20
Citizenship and Immigration Service, (hereafter "USCIS", "CIS", "INS" o
21
22 "Service") abruptly, radically, and unlawfully changed the rules governing th

23 Immigrant Investor Law. Under these new unlawful rules and policies, the Service
24
25 has deemed Plaintiffs' investments unapprovable.

26

27

28

4

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 7 of 115 Page ID #:3973

1

10. The Defendant has already applied in some cases, and intends to appl

2 in all cases, its new rules and requirements retroactively to intmigrant investors,
3
like the Plaintiffs, who made their investments and achieved lawful conditional
4
5 permanent resident status. As a result, Plaintiffs have lost their immigration statu

6 or live in constant fear that their United States immigration status will be lost.
7
8 Plaintiffs fear they will be deported, barred from reentry, and lose all the time,

9 energy, assets, and resources expended in immigrating to this country.
lO
11. Due to the initial denial of some ofthe Plaintiffs' applications, and th
1l
12 certain denial of the remainder, a cloud of uncertainty hangs over their immigratio

13
status. This fear has made it is impossible for the Plaintiffs and their families to
14
15 make future plans regarding their personal lives, finances, or education. Thos

16 Plaintiffs with children constantly worry that if deported, their children will not b
17
able to re-adapt to schools in their native country after many years in United States
18

19 schools and the children's education will suffer irreparably. Plaintiffs immigrate
20
to the United States and established themselves in their communities, enrolled the·
21
22 children in school, invested their assets, time and hard work in new careers or i

23 private business in order to create a successful future for their families in th
24
25 United States. Many Plaintiffs sold their homes and businesses, left successful an

26 profitable jobs, to immigrate to the United States. Now, Plaintiffs will be forced to
27

28

5

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 8 of 115 Page ID #:3974
discard what they worked hard to establish here in the United States and many ar
2 left with nothing to return to in their native land.
3
12. Defendant's retroactive application of these new rules and policies is
4
5 arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Further, these new requiremen 6 were adopted without lawful notice or the opportunity to comment in violation o
7
8 the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Defendant's complete and sudde
9 revision of the regulatory scheme governing the Immigrant Investor Law is
10
contrary to the law's authorizing legislation and exceeds its jurisdiction an
11
12 authority; therefore, the revision should be nullified pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
13
706(2)(C). The retroactive application of the new requirements is illegal an
14
15 violates Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected rights to due process and equa
16 protection. Defendant, and its agents, also engaged in affirmative misconduct.
17
From 1992 until later 1997, Defendant's agents affirmatively misled AIS an
18
19 Plaintiffs into believing their investments would entitle them to residency. Whil
20
misleading Plaintiffs, the Defendant believed that the Plaintiffs' applications wer
21
22 not approvable as early as 1996. Nevertheless, they accepted the I-526 application
23 and the application fees, approved Plaintiffs' I-526 applications, induced Plaintiff:
24
25 to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars, and granted Plaintiffs conditional
26 residency. Despite Defendant's prior belief of Plaintiffs' ineligibility and the·
27 28
6

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 9 of 115 Page ID #:3975

subsequent actions inducing Plaintiffs to apply, the Defendant now seeks to den

2 Plaintiffs' permanent residency. These wrongful actions have caused a serious
3
injustice to Plaintiffs who relied, to their detriment, on Defendant's representations
4
5 and actions. As a result of Defendant's affirmative misconduct, Plaintiffs can n

6 longer continue with their investments. Defendant must, therefore, be estoppe
7
8 from denying the removal of conditional residency and must grant Plaintiffs thei

9 lawful permanent residency.
10
13. The Ninth Circuit, in Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.
11
12 2003), has already ruled that the Defendant and its agents may not retroactively

13
apply the rules, which are the subject of this litigation, to similarly situate
14

'I

15 immigrant investor plaintiffs whose I-526 petitions had been approved before th

I

I

16 new rules were promulgated.

17
14. In addition to the refusal to grant lawful permanent resident status to
18

19 Plaintiffs, the Defendant had unreasonably delayed adjudication of certai
20
Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization because of its mistaken legal theory tha
21
22 conditional residents are ineligible for citizenship. The plain language of 8 U.S.C.

23 §1186b(e) provides that conditional residents on the basis of investor status shall
24
25 be considered for naturalization "to have been admitted as an alien lawfully

26 admitted for permanent residence... " Defendant's own regulations provide tha
27

28

7

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 10 of 115 Page ID #:3976

the rights of conditional residents include "the right to apply for naturalization (i
1

2 otherwise eligible)." 8 C.F.R. §1216.1. Notwithstanding the clear statutory an
3
regulatory language, Defendant has refused to adjudicate certain Plaintiffs'
4
5 applications for naturalization solely because those individuals are conditiona

6 residents.

7

8

15.

Plaintiffs, all of whom have now been conditional residents for mor

9 than five (5) years, previously sought to compel United States Citizenship and
10
Immigration Services (herein, "USCIS" or "CIS"), to adjudicate their application
ll
12 for naturalization (Form N-400s) under 8 U.S.C. §§1186b(e), 8 C.F.R. §1216.1; th

13

:,:

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and§ 1361 (mandamus),

\j

14

il

15 as well as under 8 U.S.C. §1447(b), in appropriate cases. Defendant, pursuant t

16 this Court's order, adjudicated Plaintiffs' pending applications for naturalizatio ·

17
18 and issued boiler-plate denials to Plaintiffs, upholding its mistaken legal theory

19 that conditional residents are ineligible to naturalize. Plaintiffs subsequently file
20
N-336 Requests for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings pursuan
21
22 to 8 U.S.C. §1447(a) to administratively appeal the denial of their applications fo

23 naturalization. To the extent that many of the plaintiffs or class members hav
24
25 now received denials by USCIS following their N-336 hearings, Plaintiffs no

26 seek judicial review by this Honorable Court over their denied naturalizatio
27

28

8

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 11 of 115 Page ID #:3977

applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Plaintiffs had previously allege

2 separate subclasses of persons who (i) have applied for naturalization, but receive
3
no interview, and no decision to date ("category 2"), (ii) have applied fo
4
5 naturalization, have received an interview, but no decision has been rendere

6 within the 120-day period following the interview ("category 3"). See Thir
7
8 Amended Complaint ("TAC") filed Nov. 13, 2008. Plaintiffs now allege a furthe

9 claim under§ 1421(c) and a new subclass ofpersons who have been deniedthei
10
naturalization applications following N-336 hearings and who seek judicial revie
11
12 over their naturalization applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) ("the §

13 1421(c) subclass").2

~'

14

'.··.1·

J

15

16. The across-the-board denials in the subclass members' naturalizatio

!

16 cases were based on the individual's status as a conditional permanent resident, th

I

17

I

utilization of boilerplate denial decisions, and have resulted in an improper de fact
18

.I

19 adjudication of these individuals' form I-829s (petitions to remove conditions o

20
permanent residence). The number of N-400 denials as of this date ar
21

22 approximately forty-six (46), see Exhibit W, ofwhich twenty-one (21) reside in th

23 Central District of California, see id. Of those forty-six (46) proposed subclas

24

.I

25

26 2 Subject-matter jurisdiction exists over all proposed subclass member
27 because the class representatives and named plaintiffs all reside in this District as required for a class action which has as its statutorybasis 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c).
28

9

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 12 of 115 Page ID #:3978

members, forty-four (44) have attended their fmal administrative hearings an
1

2 twenty-three (23) have received fmal determinations from the Service upholdin
3
the denials of their N-400 applications. More final determinations upholding th
4
5 N-400 denials will be forthcoming considering the pattern and practice ofUSCIS's

6 denying the subclass members' claims based upon the agency's misreading of th
7
8 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically INA § 216A(e); 8 U.S.C. §

9 1186b(e).
10
11

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
13
14 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory

15
Judgment Act), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (Administrative Procedure Act), as well a
16
17 under 28 U.S.C.§ 1346 (United States as a defendant), 28 U.S.C. § 1361

18 (Mandamus). With respect to those individuals whose naturalization applications
19
have been denied, Plaintiffs now assert subject-matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
20

21 1421(c), judicial review over naturalization claims which have been denied by U.S.
22
Citizenship and Immigration Services following an N-336 administrative hearing
23
24 Jurisdiction is proper over such claims as all § 1421(c) subclass representative

25 reside in this District.
26

27

28

10

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 13 of 115 Page ID #:3979

17. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e

2 because the United States is a defendant and a substantial number ofthe name
3
Plaintiffs and class members reside in this District.
4

5

6

III. PARTIES

7

8

Investor Plaintiffs- General Class

9

10

18. Mr. Albrecht Buhler is a citizen of Switzerland who invested in an

11 became a limited partner in Louisiana La Sevilla Limited Partnership. In

12
December 1995, Plaintiff Buhler filed an I-526 visa petition to be classified as
13

,;'

14 alien entrepreneur. On January 5, 1996, the Service approved Mr. Buhler's I-52

15
visa petition and he was subsequently granted conditional residency. As a result
16
17 Plaintiff Buhler's dependents, his wife Gillian Webb Buhler and his child Katrion

18 Gillian Kirkpatrick obtained United States conditional lawful permanent residence
19
20 Consistent with Service regulations, Mr. Buhler filed an I-829 petition in Ma

21 1999 to remove his conditional resident status. The Defendant's unlawful actions
22
described herein with absolute certainty will result in the denial of Mr. Buhler's I
23
24 829 application. Defendant's actions will subject Mr. Buhler and his dependents to

25 being stripped of their residency and to being deported from the United States,
26

27

28

11

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 14 of 115 Page ID #:3980

which will cause further financial, emotional, psychological, and irreparable har

2 to them. Mr. Albrecht Buhler is a proposed class representative.

3

19. Mr. Choong Nam Kim is a citizen of Korea, who invested in an

.-j

4

5 became a limited partner in Georgia Almark LP/Almark Mills, Inc. On June 19,

6 1996, Mr. Kim filed an I-526 visa petition to be classified as an alien entrepreneur.
7
8 On June 28, 1996, the Service approved Mr. Kim's I-526 visa petition and he wa

9 subsequently granted conditional residency. As a result, Mr. Kim's wife Ja
10
Myung Kim obtained United States conditional lawful permanent residence.
11
12 Consistent with Service regulations, on January 26, 1999 Mr. Kim filed an I-82

13
petition to remove his conditional resident status. The Defendant's unlawful
14
15 actions described herein with absolute certainty will result in the denial of Mr.

16 Kim's I-829 application. Defendant's actions will subject Mr. Kim and his
17
dependents to having their residency stripped from them and being deported from
18

19 the United States, which will cause further financial, emotional, psychological, an

20
irreparable harm to them. Mr. Choong Nam Kim is a proposed class representative.
21

22

20. Mr. Sung Duck Kong is a citizen of Korea, who invested in and

23 became a limited partner in Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership. On July 25,

I

24
25 1996, Mr. Kong filed an I-526 visa petition to be classified as an alie

26 entrepreneur. On October 8, 1996, the Service approved Mr. Kong's I-526 vis
27

28

12

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 15 of 115 Page ID #:3981

petition and he was subsequently granted conditional residency. As a result, Mr.
1

2 Kong's dependents, his wife Hye Ra Kong. His daughter Hyun Jung Kong and hi
3
son Min Suk Kong obtained United States conditional lawful permanent residence.
4
5 Consistent with Service regulations, on February 9, 1999 Mr. Kong filed an I-82

6 petition to remove his conditional resident status. The Defendant's unlawful
7
8 actions described herein with absolute certainty will result in the denial of Mr.

9 Kong's I-829 application. Defendant's actions will subject Mr. Kong and his
10
dependents to having their residency stripped from them and being deported from
II
12 the United States, which will cause further financial, emotional, psychological, an

13

I

irreparable harm to them. Mr. Sung Duck Kong is a proposed class representative.
14

;I

15.

21. Mr. Chin Hsin Kuo is a citizen of Taiwan who invested in and becam

16 a limited partner in Louisiana La Sevilla LP. On April15, 1996, Mr. Kuo filed a
17
18 I-526 visa petition to be classified as an alien entrepreneur. On April22, 1996, the

19 Service approved Mr. Kuo's I-526 visa petition and he was subsequently grante
20
conditional residency. As a result, Mr. Kuo's dependents, his wife Mei-Miao an
21
22 his son Chien-Ting Kuo, obtained United States conditional lawful permanen

23 residence. Consistent with Service regulations, on October 23, 1998, Mr. Kuo
24
25 filed an I-829 petition to remove his conditional resident status. The Defendant'

26 unlawful actions described herein with absolute certainty will result in the denial o
27

28

13

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 16 of 115 Page ID #:3982

Mr. Kuo's 1-829 application. Defendant's actions will subject PlaintiffKuo and hi

2 dependents to having their residency stripped from them and being deported fro
3
the United States, which will cause further financial, emotional, psychological, an
4
5 irreparable to them. Mr. Chin Hsin Kuo is a proposed class representative.

6

22. Mr. Chun Chen Su is a citizen of Taiwan, who invested in and becam

7

8 a Limited Partner in Alabama Denim LP. On April 30, 1996, Mr. Su filed an I

9 526 visa petition to be classified as an alien entrepreneur. On May 20, 1996, th
10
Service approved Mr. Su's 1-526 visa petition and he was subsequently grante
II
12 conditional residency. As a result, Mr. Su's dependents, his wife Hsueh-Lan Tan

13
and his sons Po-lin Su and Po-Wei Su obtained United States conditionallawfu
14
15 permanent residence. Consistent with Service regulations, on January 20, 1999,

16 Mr. Su filed an 1-829 petition to remove his conditional resident status. Th
17
Defendant's unlawful actions described herein with absolute certainty will result i
18

19 the denial of Mr. Su's 1-829 application. Defendant's actions will subject. Mr. S
20
and his dependents to having their residency stripped from them and bein
21
22 deported from the United States, which will cause further fmancial, emotional,

23 psychological, and irreparable harm to them. Mr. Chun Chen Su is a propose
24
25 class representative.

26

27

28

14

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 17 of 115 Page ID #:3983
23. Suit on behalf of any Plaintiff who is a minor is brought by the paren
2 Plaintiff, as guardian.
3
24. The individuals listed in the footnote below are the current putativ
4
5 class members within the general class. The above-referenced proposed clas
6 representatives are so designated, as well, in the following list?
7
8
9 3 AHN, Kyung Sook, AHN, Jae Bum, AHN, Soo Yeon, AHN, Tae Eun, BAK, No 10 Woong, BAK, Syun Hee, BAK, Eun Kyu, BAK, Hyun Jung, BUHLER, Albrech
(Class Rep.), BUHLER, Gillian Webb, BUHLER, Katriona Gillian Kirkpatrick 11 CHA, Myung Jo, CHA, Nak Soon, CHA, Sun Yi, CHA, Yoon Yi, CHANG, 12 Ching-Fam, CHANG, Hsueh-Mei, CHANG, Chan-Chia, CHANG, Chan-Haw
CHANG, Chan-Zue, CHANG, Chan-Wei, CHANG, MyungHoon, CHANG, Hy 13 Yeon,CHANG, Jae Young,CHANG, Jae Woo, CHANG, Jae Bum, CHANG, Rue 14 Rong, HSU, Yu-Fang, CHANG, Wei-Ting, CHANG, Tsung-Wei, CHANG, Ta 15 Peng, CHANG, Hsu-Yi, CHANG, Chia-How, CHANG, Wen-Wan, CHANG,
Tsung-Ming, CHANG, Chiao-Ying, CHANG, Yong Sik, CHANG, Mi Ok, 16 CHANG, Min Ah, CHANG, Min II, CHEN, Chi-Jen, CHEN, Chao Fang, CHEN, 11 Chien Chuan, CHEN, Mu Hua, CHEN, Guo-Chueng, CHEN, Yueh-Ying, CHEN
Chia-Ling, CHEN, Hsiang-Fu, CHEN, Chih Hui, CHEN, Yu-Tai, CHEN, Yu 18 Hung, CHEN, Hui-Hsiung, CHEN, Chiung-Chu, CHEN, Po-Lin, CHEN, Yi 19 Hsuan, CHEN, Hsin-I CHEN, Hung-Liang, CHEN, Ling-Ching, CHEN, Chih-Yu
CHEN, Kuen-Yan, CHEN, Hsiu-Hua, CHEN, Jun-Chiu, CHEN, Wu-Cheng
20
CHEN, Liang-Chung, CHAO, Siao-Shee, CHEN, I-Fan, CHEN, Pao-Chu 21 CHENG, Shu-Hua, CHENG, Chiu-Liang, CHENG, Yi-Fan, CHENG, I-Chieh 22 CHIU, Ching-Chi, CHIU, Hsueh-Hui, CHIU, Yen-Chih, CHIU, Yen-Ling, CHOE
Yoon Seok, CHOE, Young Ja, CHOE, Woo Seok CHOI, Jeong Hwan, CHOI, Mi 23 Koo, CHOI, Soo Bong, CHOI, Yoon Hee, CHOI, Hyung Jin, CHOI, Woo Hyun, 24 CHOI, Hee Jin, CHOU, Hsu Yuan-Heng, CHOU, Chih-Wei, CHOU, Chili-Ling
CHOU, Jin-Chen, CHOU, Shu-Fang, CHOU, Wei-Chun, CHOU, Yu-Shan 25 CHOU, Wei-Jen, CHOU, Yu-Lin, YEN, Wei, CHOU, Mao-Chuan, CHOU, Yi 26 Hsuan, CHUANG, Yu-Te, CHUANG, Mei-Lin, CHUANG, Hui-Tsung 27 CHUANG, Hui-Yu, CHUANG, Kai-Hung, ESPINUEVA, Eugene C.
ESPINUEVA, Fe Helengrace R., ESPINUEVA, Edward Rae R., ESPINUEVA,
28
15

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 18 of 115 Page ID #:3984
2 Evelyn, NELL, Elissa R., GONG, Hong-Mei, WANG, Fuyu, WANG, Bin, 3 WANG, Yuan, GU, Mi Jin, GU, Ja Kyung, GU, Bon Young, GU, Bon Min, JUN,
Woo Young, JUN, Chae Ok, JUN, Jae Young, HONG, Jung Sook, HONG, Myon 4 Soo, HONG, Jee Min, HONG, Sung Koo, HONG, Kyung He, HONG, Yoon K 5 HSIAO, Cheng-Ming, HSIAO, Li-Mei, HSIAO, Chiao-Yun, HSIAO, Mu-Jou,
HSIEH, Hsien-Ming, HSIEH, Shu-Chuan, HSIEH, Pei-Chen, HSIEH, Pei-Shan 6 HSIEH, Hsiu Chin, HSIEH, Jui-Hsin, HSIEH, Hui Jou, HSIEH, Tsung-Yen 1 HSIEH, Tsung-Yi, HSIEH, Pang-Chi, HSIEH, Hui Ling, HSIEH, Chia, HSIEH,
Chen HSU, Shih Chieh, HSU WU, Shu Chen, HSU, Chi-Fang, HUANG, Bi Chen
8
HUANG, Jen-Chieh, HUANG, Ta-Lun, HUANG, Ta-You, HUANG, Ta-Wei, 9 HUR, Myung Ok, HUR, Yool, HUR, Kyung Hwa, HUR, KyuJANG, Ya Jin, 10 JANG, Jae Hyeok, JO, Jae Sung, JO, So Nim, JO, Yoo Jin, JO, Yoon Suk, KAI,
Chuan-Ching, KAI, Ching-Jen, KAI, Yu-Ling, KAI, Yu~Chia, KANG, Chang Sik 11 KANG, Young Hee, KANG, Yo Han, KANG, Ik Hee, KANG, Eun Tae, KANG, 12 Shin Ho, KANG, Ha Na, KANG, Jeoung Soo, KANG, Yang Sook, KANG, Ki
Soon, KANG, Moon Hwan, KANG, Ji Eun, KANG, Woo Jin, KANG, Woo Sung, 13 KAO, Chien Kuei, LIANG, Yu Lien, KAO, An Kuo, KIM, Chae Young, KIM, 14 Hwa Shin, KIM, Soo Jeong, KIM, Geon Tae, KIM, Min Seong, KIM, Chan 15 Hack, KIM, Ok Hyeun, KIM, Joung Nam, KIM, Joung Kwan, KIM, Choortg N
(Class Rep.), KIM, Jae Myung, KIM, Dong Ho, KIM, Sung Sook, KIM, Hee Jung, 16 KIM, Hyung Seok KIM, Han Soo, KIM, Sung Ja, KIM, So Jeong, KIM, Youn 11 Chan, KIM, Hwan Kyum, JANG, Kwee Sik, KIM, June Gil, KIM, June Young,
KIM, Jong Won, KIM, Young Mo, KIM, Tae Ho, KIM, Yeon Jin, KIM, Joon 18 Heon, KIM, Keun Young, KIM, Jeong Sun, KIM, Jeong Kyung, KIM, Seong Ik, 19 KIM, Kwang, Won, KIM, Duk Soo, KIM, Jung Hoon, KIM, Jung Woo, KIM,
Kwon Gi, KIM, Young Hee, KIM, Seung Hwan, KIM, Hee Jin, KIM, Kyung Ho,
20
KIM, Yeon Joo, KIM, Hae Jin, KIM, Won Woo, KIM, Kyung Joong, KIM, 21 Myong Soon, KIM, Hyung Sun, KIM, Wan Sun, KIM, Kyung Sook,KIM, Hyun 22 Woo, KIM, Soon Ae, KIM, Tae Kyu, KIM, Tae Hyun, KIM, Ssang Gi, KIM, J"
Hee, KIM, Da Young, KIM, A Young, KIM, Dae Woong, KIM, Tae Ho, KO, 23 Homg Yuan, HSU, Jui-Hsiu, KO, Jung Yung, KO, Jung Yen, KO, Jung-Da KO 24 Mee Sun, KO, Sung Hyun, KO, Sung Hoon, KONG, Sung Duck (Class Rep.)
KONG, Hye Ra, KONG, Hyun Jung, KONG, Min Suk, KUO, Chin-Hsin, KU
25
(Class Rep.), Chien-Ting, KWON, Hee Jae, KWON, You Young, KWON, Hyo 26 Jeong, KWON, Hyeong Jin, LEE, Kyu Baik, LEE, Ai Ran, LEE, Jin Yong, LEE, 27 Hee Yong, LEE, Woo Yong, LEE, Mei-Jung, LI, Zin-Pha, LEE, Yong Ki, LEE,
Sun Hee, LEE, Suh Jin, LEE, Sook Hyun, LEE, HanNa, LEE, Sung Joon, LEE,
28
16

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 19 of 115 Page ID #:3985

2 Sung Hyun, LEE, Yoon Sik, LEE, Jong Hee, LEE, Eung Jun, LEE, Sang Eun,

3 LEE, Eung Sang, LEE, Young Cheon, LEE, Duk Soon, LEE, Joon Woo, LEE, Sang Eun, LEE, Kun Woo, LEE, Young Kyu, LEE, Jeen Ran, LEE, Se Jong, LEE,

4 Se Hyup, LEUNG, Koon Cheung Tom, LEUNG LEE, Kwai Loi, LEUNG, Ho

5 Yin, LEUNG, Wing Yin, LEUNG, Koon Tai, LEUNG WONG, Siu Fong LEUNG,
Yi Ting, LEUNG, Hiu Wai, LIAO, Chun-Hsiung, LIAO, Shu-Chen, LIAO, Shun 6 Jen, LIAO, Wei-Lin, LIAO, Pen-Yu, LIAO, Hsiu Fang, LIAO, Yi Chan,LIAO, Y"

7 Chin, LIAO, Wen-Hsien, LIAO, Mei-Li, LIAO, Hsuan-Ping, LIAO, I-Ping, LIAO

Hung-Hsiang, LIAO, Pin-Pin, LIN, Chen-Chin, LIN, Ching Ming, LIN, Hou Chou, 8 LIN, Wen Yuan, LIN, Ho-Whei, LIN, Lee Li,LIN, Chuang-Ju, LIN, Chuang-Yeh

9 LIN, Hwa-Hsiung, LIN, Chin-Ching, LIN, Szu-Yin, LIN, Ko-Ting, LIN, Min

10 Ling, CHEN, Kai-Nan, CHEN, Yu-Ching, LIU, Yu-Hao, TSAI, Te-Hung, TSAI Chiang Ling, MA, Shiu-Lan, TANG, Chi-Hua, TANG, Hao-Hua, MIN, Hyun

11 Moon, MIN, Young Sook, MIN, Ji Young, MIN, Seon Young, MIN, Se-Young

12 MOON, Joon Sik, MOON, Mi Ja, MOON, Hyun Sun, NOH, Chi Seung, NOH,

Jung Hee, NOH, Dong Hyun, NOH, Hye Rim, NOH, Min Hyun, PAN, Ching 13 Kuen, PAN, Pei Chun, PAN, Yi Yang, PARK, Don Suk, PARK, Yoon Sok,

::1
'I

14 PARK, Jung Woo, PARK, Jae Kwan, PARK, Ae Ryun, PARK, Jang Sun, PARK,

I

15 Jee Sun, PARK, In Sun, PARK, Tae Heup, PARK, Hwa Ja, PARK, Joung June,

PARK, Joung Hye, PARK, Young Woo, PARK, Hye Sun, PARK, Hyun Sung,

16 PARK, Hyun Wook, SEO, Moung Sook, SEO, Dong Shin, SEO, Dong Hwan,

11 SEO, Jeong Hwa, SHE, Cheng-Hsiung, SHE, Hui Wen, SHE, Tzu Ming, SHIM,

Myung Seong, SHIM, Chung Hwa, SHIM, Young Hoon, SHIM, Jie Hye, SHIM, 18 Sug Soo, SHIM, Bo Soo, SHIM, Soon Yong, SHIM, Sun Hee, SHIN, Jin Young,

19 SHIN, Chang Yeo!, SHIN, Ji Ye, SHIN, Ji Min, SHIN, Moon Soo, SHIN, Kyun

Sook, SHIN, Jae Hoon,SHIN, Won Ju, SIM, Hyun Yong, SIM, Youn Woo, SIM,
20
Hyun Jung, SIM, Jae Hyung, SIU, Stanley S. T.,SIU, Ivy H. K., SIU, Vivian, SU,

21 Chun-Chen (Class Rep.), TANG, Hsueh-Lan, SU, Po-Lin, SU, Po-Wei, SUH, Yo

22 Ho, SUH, Mi Ran, SUH, Dong Kwan, SUH, Min Sue TELLEZ CHAVES, Jorg
Alberto, TELLEZ, Martha Consuelo Gomez, TELLEZ GOMEZ, Marcela, 23 TELLEZ GOMEZ, Laura, TONG, Chien-Hwa, TORO-BETANCUR, Andres D.

24 ISAZA, Liliana, TORO-ISAZA, Susana, TORO-ISAZA, Paulina, TSANG, Fa

Zee Eric, TSENG, Hsiu-LIANG, TSENG, Wen-His, TSENG, Huan-Min, TSUI 25 Tu Hsiu, TSUI, Chien Mei, TSUI, Chia Hsiang, TSUI, Fang Chi, TSUI, Fan

26 Ching, WANG, Po-En, WANG, Hsiao-Fang, WANG, Wei, WANG WONG, Y

27 Lan, WANG, Ming, WANG, Dawei, WU, Yu-Fen, WU, Yang, WU, Ching-Chun WU, Chun-Chieh, YANG, Man-Chiou, YANG, Pen-Po, YANG, Jen-Hsing

28

17

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 20 of 115 Page ID #:3986

Investor Plaintiffs Seeking NaturalizationRelating to Subclass Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)

2

3

25. Plaintiffs hereby list the following subclass representatives who wil

4 serve to fully and fairly represent the interests of all putative subclass member
5
seeking judicial review of the denial of their applications for naturalization unde
6
7 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c): 1) Chiao Ying CHANG; 2) Tsung Wei CHANG; 3) Wei Tin
8
CHANG; 4) Wen Wan CHANG; 5) Hui Yu CHUANG; 6) Yu Te CHUANG; 7
9
10 Chi Fang HSU; 8) Yu Fang HSU; 9) Bi Chen HUANG; 10) Ta Lun HUANG; 11

11 Ta You HUANG; 12) Kyu HUR; 13) Myung Ok HUR; 14) Yool HUR; 15) Kyun
12
13 Hwa HUR; 16) Chin Ching LIN; 17) Ko Ting LIN; 18) Szu Yin LIN; 19) Po-L'

14 SU; 20) Po-Wei SU; and 21) Yuk Lan WANG WONG. See Exhibit W. AI
15
subclass representatives reside in the Central District of California as require
16
17 under§ 1421(c) and 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b).

18

26. Each principal investor made the proper investment and complie

19

20 with all requirements of their 1-526 petitions and their 1-526 petitions were al

21 approved by Defendant. Defendant has refused to take any action to adjudicat
22

23
24 YANG, Hsin-Ti, YIM, Ki Sun, YIM, Young Sook, YIM, Chong Hwa, YIM, Yo Jung, YOO, Dong Khun, YOO, Ha Young, YOO, Seung Han, YOO, Sang Won,
25 YOO, Su Jung, YOO, Ho Yang, YOO, Young Ae, YOO, Sung Hwan, YOO, Ji 26 Hwan, YOON, In Soo, YOON, Kyung Deog, YOON, Byung Hee, YOON, Ji En, 27 YOON, Kwang Hee, KIM, Hak Woo, KIM, Hak Sun, YOUN, Yeo Bok, YOUN,
Cin Ok, YOUN, Chul Hwoan, YOUN, Young Hwoan, and YUN, Ki Soon.
28

18

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 21 of 115 Page ID #:3987

1 their 1-829 applications because, to date, and for more than nine years, it ha

2 refused to promulgate the necessary regulations pursuant to AC2l. The investor
3
did invest the requisite amount and have complied with and maintained thei
4
5 residency since the approval of their 1-526 petitions and the statute does not requir

6 any job creation during the two year period. See INA § 216A(d). Thus, Defendan
7
8 improperly denied Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization on the erroneou

9 ground that they were not "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" because th

10
conditions have not yet been lifted from their residency. All subclas
ll

12 representatives and putative class members were denied on the same mistake

l3
legal basis and should be permitted to proceed on a class basis.
14

15

27. The individuals listed in the footnote below are the current putativ

16 class members within the§ 1421(c) subclass whose interests will be represented b
17
18 the subclass representatives contained in Paragraph 25.4

19

Defendant

20
28. Defendant is the United States of America, its respective agencies,
21

22 and respective delegates, to wit: the Department of Justice, the Department o

23
24 4 Eun BAK; Hyun BAK; Syun BAK; Hsui Yi Lai CHANG; Yi Fan CHENG; Min Koo CHOI; Jin Chen CHOU; Wei Chun CHOU; Wei Jen CHOU; Yu Shan
25 CHOU; Shua Hua Cheng HSIEH; Jui Hsiu HSU; Chang Sik KANG; Yohan 26 KANG; Young Hee KANG; Hee Jin KIM; Homg Yuan KO; Jung Yung KO; Jung 27 Da KO; Hee Yong LEE; Woo Yong LEE; Ching Min LIN; Hou ChouLIN; Wen
Yuan LIN; and Dawei WANG.
28

19

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 22 of 115 Page ID #:3988

1 Homeland Security, Department of State, United States Citizenship an

2 Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"),
3
Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), the Attorney General of the Unite
4
5 States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of USCIS, and th

6 Secretary of State, which are responsible for the administration and enforcement o
7
8 the INA, the Immigration Investor Program, and the rules and regulations

9 promulgated thereunder.

10
Class Allegations relating to General Class-All Counts
11

12

29. Mr. Buhler, et al., Plaintiffs, bring this action as a class actio

13 pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(l)(A) and/or 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules o
14
15 Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The class

16 consists of the following ascertainable members:

17

All aliens, including derivative beneficiaries, who invested in one

18

of the AIS Partnerships described in paragraphs 215 to 242 ofthe

19

original Ahn Complaint, who had an 1-526 petition approved by

20

the Attorney General after January 1, 1995 and before August 31,

1998, and were granted conditional residence status pursuant to

21

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), section 203(b)(5), 8

22

U.S.C. § l153(b)(5), and who timely filed, in accordance with INA

§ 216A(c)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(l)(A), and before November

23

2, 2002, an 1-829 petition requesting the removal of such

24

conditional basis, and who have received or will receive a denial of

25

their permanent residency because they are unable to comply

with the investment and employment requirements under INA §§

26

203(b)(5) and 216A and existing regulations as a result of: (1) the

27

retroactive application of the standards announced in Matter of

28

20

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 23 of 115 Page ID #:3989

Izumii and its progeny; (2) the affirmative misconduct of the

Defendants in approving class members 1-526 petitions on which

2

the class members detrimentally relied; and/or (3) APA, abuse of

3

discretion, ultra vires, and due process and equal protection

violations.

4

I

5

30. The class of investors consists of at least 200 investors and thei

I

6 number makes joinder of all members impracticable.

7

8

31. A community of interest exists between Mr. Buhler et a!., an

9 members of the class in that there are questions of law and fact which are common
10
to all Plaintiffs and class members. All Plaintiffs and class members are subject t
11
12 a change in rules, policies, and procedures of the Defendant as detailed i

13
paragraph 105, infra, which will result in the denial of their permanent residency
14
15 in the United States. All of these changes with respect to all Plaintiffs and a!

16 members of the class: (1) were made in violation of the notice and commen
17
18 provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act; (2) constitute an abuse o

19 discretion under the APA and the INA; (3) exceed the Defendant's statutory
20
authority under 5 U.S.C.§ 706(2)(C) and INA §§216(c)(1)(A) and (d)(l), 8 U.S.C.
21
22 §§1186b(c)(1)(A) and (d)(1); violate due process and equal protection; (5) violat

23 principles of estoppel; and (6) involve the improper retroactive application ofth
24
25 law. In addition, all Plaintiffs are subject to the same facts and policy in regard to

26 the affirmative misconduct of the Defendant as detailed in paragraphs 79, 118-37
27

28

21

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 24 of 115 Page ID #:3990

whereby Defendant decided, as early as August 1996, that Plaintiffs' investo

2 petitions could not be approved yet they approved them, allowed the Investo
3
Plaintiffs to enter the United States and remain here for many years, accepted thei
4
· 5 filing fees for their I-829 petitions, and took no action to revoke their I-52

6 applications.

7

8

32. The claims or defenses of the representative Plaintiffs and o

9 Defendant are typical of the claims of the class or defenses ofthe Defendant.
10
33. The representative Plaintiffs Mr. Buhler, et a!., will fairly an
11
12 adequately protect the interests of the class because they, like all class members,

13
are subject to the unlawful policies and actions of the Defendant which will resul

·'

14

I

15 in the denial of their I-829 applications to lift the conditions on their residency. Th

I

16 legal outcome is identical to that which the members of the class have bee

17
18 subjected to, threatened with, or will be subjected to.

19

34.

20
because:
21

22

Individual suits by each member of the class would be impracticabl a. They would create a risk of inconsistent or varying

23

adjudications with respect to the individual members of the

24

25

class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct

26

of the party opposing the class; and

27

28

22

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 25 of 115 Page ID #:3991

b. Defendants have acted or have threatened to act, on grounds

2

generally applicable to each member of the class, makin

3
appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respec
4

5

to the class as a whole.

6

35. The number of individual suits would impose an undue burden on th

7

8 courts as it would require the adjudication of at least 200 separate cases.

9

36. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair an

10
efficient adjudication ofthis controversy.
11

12

37. Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in class action litigation and ca

13
adequately represent the interests of class members as well as the named Plaintiffs.
14

15

38. The class members have suffered a denial of a previously availabl

16 right exercised by other similarly situated investors in AIS investment programs as
17
a result of the Defendant's illegal conduct.
18

19

39. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions and affrrmativ

20
misconduct, the Investor Plaintiffs have also suffered substantial and irreparabl
21

22 harm. Many, if not all, of the Investor Plaintiffs are suffering from fear, anxiety,

23 worry, insonmia, and nightmares due to the current uncertainty as to thei
24
25 immigration status and that of their dependents. Other injury, harm or hardshi

I

26 suffered by the Investor Plaintiffs includes the current and future financial an

27

28

23

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 26 of 115 Page ID #:3992

emotional losses incurred by being unable to plan for the future. Due to th

2 uncertainty, investments cannot be made, houses cannot be purchased, stable an
3
permanent jobs cannot be secured, overseas travel cannot be planned, and
4
5 educational opportunities cannot be pursued. Many Investor Plaintiffs hav

6 suffered and continue to suffer substantial economic loss and psychological traum
7
8 due to the uncertainty of their U.S. immigration status, as they are denied th

9 ability to further invest or otherwise plan financially for their future. In addition,
10
Investor Plaintiffs may be subject to the 3 and 10 year bar ifthey are now forced to
11
12 leave the United States.

13

il'
'J

40. Many Investor Plaintiffs have relatives residing in the United States
14

15 who are either permanent lawful U.S. residents or U.S. citizens. If unlawfully

I
!

16 denied their lawful permanent residency and deported, these Investor Plaintiffs will

17

be, separated once again from their mothers or fathers, brothers or sisters, in-law
18

19 and other relatives residing in the United States. There are even Investor Plaintiffs

20
with minor children who are U.S. citizens by birth, who would be forced to choos
21
22 between taking their child back to a country they have never known, or leaving th

23 child behind with relatives in this country.

24

25

41. Those Investor Plaintiffs who have school-age dependents expres

26 great fear, anxiety, and stress relating to their children's education, Most of the
27

28

24

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 27 of 115 Page ID #:3993
1 Investor Plaintiffs' children left schools in their native countries upon immigratin 2 to the United States, and have been attending U.S. schools for the past several
3
years as conditional lawful permanent residents. Both the children and their parents
4
5 suffer greater fear, anxiety, and stress considering the possibility that they may be 6 deported and their education terminated. Due to the fundamental differences
7
8 between the educational system of the United States and that of Korea, Taiwan,
9 China, and the other countries from which these parents and children came, i
10
would therefore be almost impossible for these children to re-adapt or reintegrat
ll
12 into the educational system of their native land. Many of these children are no l3 longer fluent in their native tongues, but have now become fluent in English
14
15 complicating any possible return to an educational system outside the Unite
16 States. All of the education received in America would thus be in vain, and this
17
possibility has harmed, and continues to harm, the emotional and physical well
18
19 being ofthe children and their Investor Plaintiff parents.
20
42. Similarly, most, if not all, of the Investor Plaintiffs sold homes an
21
22 businesses, and liquidated assets to emigrate to the United States. Many are unabl 23 to return to their home countries because they will be unable to earn a living ther
24
25 in light of their previous actions in liquidating assets and leaving their countries. 26 The constant threat of deportation, brought on by the Defendant's unlawful actio
27 28
25

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 28 of 115 Page ID #:3994
and affirmative misconduct, causes severe emotional and physical harm to th
2 Investor Plaintiffs and their dependents. The Investor Plaintiffs, in reliance upo
3
the Defendant's rules, regulations, assurances, representations, statements, an
4
5 promises that the investment programs offered by the AIS partnerships complie 6 fully with the law and that their I-526 and I-829 petitions would be approved
7
8 emigrated to the United States. Upon arrival, the Investor Plaintiffs and the· 9 families found new residences, joined religious or charitable organizations
10
transferred foreign assets and investments, enrolled in schools, purchase
II
12 automobiles, established new businesses, friendships, and social and professiona
13
relationships, obtained driver's licenses, social security cards, and bank accounts,
14
15 actively participated in their schools and communities, and fulfilled the dream o
16 lawfully residing in the United States.
17
43. In addition, the Investor Plaintiffs in good faith maintained or sough
18
19 to maintain their investments as required by the Immigrant Investor Law and as se
20
forth in their I-526 petitions. All Investor Plaintiffs, so required, timely filed thei
21
22 I-829 petitions to remove conditions. Now, the retroactive application of the ne 23 rules by Defendant exposes them to deportation and the resulting economic
24
25 emotional, and familial devastation.
26 27 28
26

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 29 of 115 Page ID #:3995

2

3
Subclass Allegations of Class Members Denied Naturalization

4

Regarding Cause of Action Seven And

5

§ 1421 Subclass

6

44. The following are the subclass representatives for the

7

8 subclass of individuals who have been denied naturalization by USCIS: Yuk-L

9 Wang Wong; Wen-Wan Chang; Po-Wei Su; and Po-Lin Su. These named subclas
10
representatives bring this action on behalf of the putative subclass members liste
II
12 within Exhibit W, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(l)(A) and/or 23(b)(2) ofth

13 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
14
15 situated.

16

45. Regarding the§ 1421(c) subclass, the proposed subclass definition i

17

18 as follows:

i

i

I

19

All persons, including derivative beneficiaries, who invested

20

in one of the AIS Partnerships, who were granted

conditional residence status under the employment based

21

fifth preference of the Immigration and Nationality Act,

22

section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(5) as alien investors,

who have been conditional residents for 5 years or more,

23

whose conditional resident status has not been revoked, who

24

have final denials of their N-400 applications, and who are

25

seeking judicial review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c),

having had their N-400 applications systematically denied

26

by USCIS based upon their status as EB-5 Conditional

27

Residents in contravention of 8 U.S.C. § 1186(e).

28

27

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 30 of 115 Page ID #:3996

46. A community of interest exists between the Subclass Representatives
2
3 and members of this subclass in that there are questions of law and fact which are

4 common to all named representatives and subclass members.
5
47. All representatives and subclass members within the § 1421(c
6
7 subclass are subject to the same improper application of the law and policies an
8
procedures of the Defendant as detailed in paragraph 14, supra, which will resul
9
10 or has resulted in the denial of each subclass members' application fo

II naturalization thus conferring jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
12
13 1421(c).

il
J:I

14

48. The claims or defenses of the representative Plaintiffs and o

I

15
Defendant are typical of the claims of the class or defenses of the Defendant. Fo

16

17 example, the class representatives are either the principal investors, or derivativ

18 family members of the principal investors, who were all granted I-526 conditiona
19
20 residency status. They share the same claims for naturalization as all subclass

21 members in that they all were granted EB-5 conditional residency status more tha
22
five (5) years ago, all are eligible for naturalization barring any issues of goo
23
24 moral character, physical presence, and all other issues impacting on thei
25
eligibility for naturalization.
26

27

28

28

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 31 of 115 Page ID #:3997

. I

49. The subclass representatives will fairly and adequately protect th

2 interests of the subclass because they, like all subclass members, are subject to th

3 unlawful policies and actions of the Defendant. Such policies and actions, a
4

5 applied to the subclass members' naturalization applications, haveresulted in thes

I

6 individuals being prevented from becoming United States citizens. The lega

I

7

8 outcome is identical to that which the members of the subclass have been subjecte

9 to, threatened with, or will be subjected to.
10
50. Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the denial of their applications fo
11
12 naturalizations pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Section 142l(c) permits a court t

13 conduct a de novo hearing on an application for naturalization at the request of th

<:1
';j

14

:1

15 petitioner. Plaintiffs seek to proceed on a representative basis to evaluate

!

16 identified legal question as a threshold matter. Plaintiffs seek to proceed on

17
18 representational basis because individualized hearings, in regard to the identified,

19 threshold legal question presented, may be deemed impracticable because, fo

20
example,
21

22

a.

They would create a risk of inconsistent or varying

23

adjudications with respect to the individual members

24

25

of the class which would establish incompatible

26

standards of conduct of the party opposing the

27

28

29

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 32 of 115 Page ID #:3998

subclass; or

2

3

4

5

.I

I

6

I

7

I

8

b. Defendants have acted or have threatened to act, on grounds generally applicable to each member of the class, making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the subclass as a whole.

9 Therefore, in lieu of individualized hearings before the District Court to evaluat
10
this threshold legal question, Plaintiffs request a ruling from this Court in the fo
11
12 of a legal conclusion that the conditional permanent resident status of any

13
individual subclass member cannot be used as a basis to improperly deny tha
14
15 individual's application for naturalization. In the alternative, if this Court deems

16 that review on a representational basis is not permitted by section 1421(c),
17
18 Plaintiffs request individualized hearings before the District Court. 5

19

20 5 In the event that this Court denies Plaintiffs' instant motion or do not permit

21 Plaintiffs to proceed on a representational basis, Plaintiffs respectfully request that

22 the 120 day time limit for filing a cause of action pursuant to 8U.S.C. § 1421(c),

as set forth in 8 C.F .R. § 336.9(b), be tolled so that proposed subclass members not

23 residing in this District do not lose their right to file a cause of action under Section

i
!

24 1421(c) in their district of residence. See American Pipe and Construction Co. v.

25 Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 554 (1974)(the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would

26 have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action); see

27 also Catholic Social Services v. INS, 232 F.3d 1139, 1145-49 (9th Cir. 2000)(en

bane).

28

30

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 33 of 115 Page ID #:3999

51. The number of individual suits may impose an undue burden on th

2 courts as it would require the adjudication of scores of individual lawsuits.

3
52. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair an
4

I

5 efficient adjudication of this controversy.

.I

6

53. Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in class action litigation and ca

7

8 adequately represent the interests of class members as well as the named Plaintiffs.

9

54. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions, the members of this

10
subclass have suffered substantial and irreparable harm. They have been deprive
11

12 of the most precious right our country has to offer-the right to be a member o

13
our political community through the grant of citizenship. By denying them th
14
15 right to have their claim for citizenship adjudicated in a timely mauner, Defendan

16 has deprived the subclass members of all the benefits that accrue to citizens
17
including social, political and economic benefits that we extend only to Unite
18

19 States citizens. They have been denied the right to apply for employment that is
20
limited to United States citizens such as federal employment in many areas; they
21
22 have been denied the right to vote in local, county, state and federal elections; and

23 they have been denied the right to obtain certain benefits from the government tha
24
25 are extended to citizens and not conditional residents. They have also been denie

26 the right to petition for other close family members who they wished to be reunite
27

28

31

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 34 of 115 Page ID #:4000

with in the United States. Many, if not all, of the subclass members are sufferin
1

2 from fear, anxiety, worry, insomnia, and nightmares due to the current uncertainty
3
as to their immigration status. Other injury, harm or hardship suffered by subclass
4
5 members include the current and future financial and emotional losses incurred by

6 being unable to plan for the future. Due to this uncertainty, investments cannot b
7
8 made, houses cannot be purchased, stable and permanent jobs cannot be secured,

9 overseas travel cannot be planned, and educational opportunities cannot b
10
pursued. Many Investor Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer substantia
11
12 economic loss and psychological trauma due to the uncertainty of their U.S.

13
immigration status, as they are denied the ability to further invest or otherwise pla
14
15 financially for their future.

16

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS

17

The Immigrant Investor Law
18

19

55. In 1990, Congress enacted the Immigrant Investor Law, INA §

20
203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5). This provision made available lawful permanen
21

22 resident visas for qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for th

23 purpose of engaging or investing in a "new commercial enterprise," To qualifY,
24
25 the immigrant must invest or be actively in the process of investing $1,000,000.00

26 in a new commercial enterprise, or at least $500,000.00 where the investment i
27

28

32

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 35 of 115 Page ID #:4001

being made in a "targeted employment area." The immigrant must demonstrate th

2 investment created full-time employment for no fewer than 10 United States
3
citizens or aliens authorized to be employed in the United States. Where th
4
5 capital investment is being made in a "troubled business," which is a business tha

6 has been in existence for at least two years and that has lost 20 percent of its ne
7
8 worth over the past 12 to 24 months, the immigrant investor can demonstrate th

9 investment maintained the number of existing employees at no less than the pre
10
investment level for a period of at least two years. If the investment is in
11
12 regional center, the employment creation aspect may be met through indirect as

13
well as direct employment.

14

'!.···1'
"·

15

56. The Service's fmal rules for implementing the immigrant investo

16 provisions of INA§ 203(b)(5) were promulgated on November 29, 1991, 56 Fed.
17
Reg. 60897, and went into effect that day. The final rules set forth the Service's
18

19 interpretation of the language in INA § 203(b)(5).
20
57. The Service's regulations set forth, specifically in 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e),
21
22 the definitions to be used when reviewing a petition to classify an alien under IN

23
§ 203(b)(5).

24

25

58. "Capital" means cash and other tangible assets. The Service als

26 broadly construed the term "capital" to include debt instruments, such as
27

28

33

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 36 of 115 Page ID #:4002

1 promissory notes, if the immigrant investor is personally liable for the debt and th

2 debt is not secured by the new enterprise's assets. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).
3
59. "Commercial enterprise" is any for-profit activity formed for th
4
5 ongomg conduct of lawful business including a partnership, either general o

6 limited. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). In passing the Immigrant Investor Law, Congress
7
8 intended the term "new commercial enterprise" to be broadly applied and t

9 include pooled investment programs. The purpose of the Immigrant Investo
10
Program was to attract foreign investors to invest new capital, create ne
II

12 commercial enterprises, revitalize existing troubled businesses, promote job

13
creation or job retention, and to benefit the United States economy and !abo
14
15 market. Congress intended immigrant investor petitions to be reviewed in

16 flexible and reasonable manner in order to achieve the Immigrant Investor Law's
17
purpose.
18

19

60. "Invest" means to contribute capital, but the defmition excludes an

20
contribution of capital "in exchange for a note, bond, convertible debt, obligation,
21

22 or any other debt arrangement between the immigrant investor and the ne

23 commercial enterprise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).
24

25

26

27

28

34

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 37 of 115 Page ID #:4003

61. "Targeted employment area" means an area that at the time o

2 investment is a rural area or has experienced high unemployment of at least 150

3
percent ofthe national average rate. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e).
4

5

62. "Troubled business" is a business that has been in existence for a

6 least two years, has incurred a net loss for accounting purposes during the prior 12
7
8 to 24 month period prior to the immigrant investor's filing date for the 1-526, an

9 the loss for such period is equal to twenty percent of the troubled business's ne

10
worth prior to such loss. 8 C.F .R. § 204.6(e).
11

12

63. The Service's regulations, specifically 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g), provide

13
that "a new commercial enterprise may be used as the basis of a petition fo
14
15 classification as an alien entrepreneur by more than one investor," (i.e., a "poole

16 investment"), provided each immigrant investor's investment results in the creatio
17
of a least 10 full-time jobs for qualifYing employees. This section also provides
18

19 there can be co-owners of the new commercial enterprise who are not seekin
20
classification as "immigrant investors," as well as foreign or domestic corporations
21
22 or partnerships.

i

23

64. The Service's regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.60)(5) address th

I

!

24

25 statutory requirement that the immigrant investor be engaged in the management o

26 the new commercial enterprise, either through day-to-day managerial control o
27

28

35

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 38 of 115 Page ID #:4004

through policy formulation. The regulation provides that a limited partner will b
1

2 considered sufficiently engaged in the management of the enterprise, if the limite
3
partnership agreement gives the immigrant investor "certain rights, powers, an
4
5 duties normally granted to limited partners under the Uniform Limited Partnership

6
Act."
7
8

Creation of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program

9

65. On October 6, 1992, Congress established the Pilot Program, a sub

10
program of the Immigrant Investor Program. The Pilot Program amended th
11

12 Immigrant Investor Law in order to encourage immigrants to pool their capital an

13
invest in "regional centers." "Regional centers" are entities organized "for th
14
15 promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improve

16 regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment."
17
Section 610, Department of Justice and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
18

19 1993, Pub. L. 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828, 1874 ("1993 Appropriations Act").
20
66. A "regional center" is "any economic unit, public or private, which is
21
22 involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales,

23 improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capita
24
25 investment." 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e). For purposes of the Pilot Program, the Servic

26 designates regional centers.
27

28

36

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 39 of 115 Page ID #:4005

67. Under the Pilot Program, the requirement in the Immigratio

2 Investment Program that each individual investment create ten jobs for qualifyin
3
individuals was expressly relaxed. The Immigrant Pilot Program allows immigran
4
5 investors, who invest in a regional center, to demonstrate "indirect" job creation as

6 a result of the investment.

7

8

68. On August 24, 1993, the Service promulgated its Interim Rul

9 governing the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. 59 Fed. Reg. 44606. Althoug
10
the legislation authorizing the Pilot Program specified that the program's multiple
11
12 purposes were the "promotion of economic growth, including export sales

13
improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capita
14
15 investment," the Service's rulemaking improperly focused only on the "increase

16 exports" component of the program. To that end, the preamble to the rule note
17
that, while Section 610(c) requires that the revenues generated by the enterpris
18

19 must result in exports, the enterprise itself need not be engaged directly in
20
generating exports of goods or services. Therefore, immigrant investor
21
22 participating in the Pilot Program were allowed to credit jobs created directly

23 through their investment activities. 58 Fed. Reg. at 44607.

24

25

69. The Service's Interim Rule also provides that, in lieu of stric

26 adherence to the "10 jobs created" requirement of the original immigrant investo
27

28

37

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 40 of 115 Page ID #:4006

program, "reasonable methodologies" could be used to estimate the number ofjobs

2 created by investment in a regional center. These methodologies may includ
3
multiplier tables, feasibility studies, analyses of foreign and domestic markets fo
4
5 the goods and services to be exported, and "other economically or statistically

6 valid forecasting devices which indicate the likelihood that the business will resul
7
8 in increased employment." 8 C.P.R.§ 204.6(m)(3)(v).

9

70. The Service's final rule implementing the Pilot Program wa

10
published on Aprill5, 1994. 59 Fed. Reg. 17920. No substantive changes were
11

12 made to the Interim Rule, but in responding to comments on it the Service note

13
that the legislative history of Section 61 0 of the 1993 Appropriations Ac

14

'I
I

15 "indicates that Congress intended to determine the viability of pooling investments

'
16 in specific regions of the United States." Id. (citing S. Rep. No. 918, 102 Cong.,

17

18 2d Sess. (1992)). In addition, the Service understood its own regulations an

19 provided guidance to the public that pooled investments in the form of ventur
20
capital funds were permitted in the context of regional Pilot Programs. Thus,
21
22 venture capital funds which included pooling arrangements were permitted.

23

71. In addition to the regulations cited above, additional guidance on th

24

25 Immigrant Investor Program has been provided by legal opinions published by th

26 Service's Office of General Counsel ("OGC"). An OGC Memorandum Opinio
27

28

38

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 41 of 115 Page ID #:4007

dated September 10, 1993 encourages the formation of venture capital funds b

2 concluding that the pooled investment programs fully satisfY the letter and spirit o

3
the Immigrant Investor Law (Exhibit A).
4

5

72. A September 10, 1993 OGC Memorandum Opinion confirms that a

6 investor's capital is placed "at risk," for purposes if 8 C.F.R. § 204.60)(2), even i
7
8 the investor, and the enterprise in which he or she invested, has an agreement fo

9 the sale of the investor's interest in the enterprise (such as by redemption, third
10
party purchase, or otherwise) after the two-year conditional period had beet
11

12 satisfied. This was to further encourage inlmigrant investment by permitting the

13
creation of "exit strategies" for the investor.
14

15

73. An OGC Memorandum Opinion dated June 27, 1995 e!lcouraged th

16 extension of credit to immigrant investors by concluding the Service's regulation
17
did not prohibit an investor's indebtedness (such as a promissory note backed by
18

19 .the investor's own assets) to meet the requirements if it was a secured transaction
20
under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Exhibit B).
21
22 Attaining Lawful Permanent Residence Under the Immigrant Investor Law

23

74. To obtain lawful permanent residence under the Immigrant Investo

24

25 Law, an immigrant entrepreneur must first file an I-526 petition setting fort

26 information about the investor and the qualifYing investment. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a).
27

28

39

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 42 of 115 Page ID #:4008

The I-526 petition must be filed with the USCIS Service Center having jurisdictio

2 over the area in which the new commercial enterprise is or will be principally

3
doing business. 8 C.F .R. § 204.6(b).
4

5

75. The I-526 petition must be accompanied by evidence that the alien ha

6 invested, or is actively in the process of investing lawfully obtained capital, in
7
8 new commercial enterprise in the United States that will create full-time position

9 for not fewer than 10 qualifYing employees. In the case of an investment in
10
"troubled business," the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the numbe
11
12 of existing employees is being, or will be maintained, at no less than the pre

13

1
j

investment level for a period of at least two years.
14

:.1

15

76. In the case of a petition submitted under the Immigrant Investor Pilo

16 Program, a petition must be accompanied by evidence that the immigrant investo
17
has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital obtained throug
18

19 lawful means within a regional center designated by the Service, and that th
20
petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose o
21
22 generating a return. Petitions under the Pilot Program need only demonstrat

23 "indirect" job creation, rather than the "direct" job creation required under th
24
25 Immigrant Investor Law. In other words, a petition under the Pilot Program mus

26 be accompanied by evidence that the investment will create 10 full-time position
27

28

40

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 43 of 115 Page ID #:4009

either directly or indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports o

2 other forms of business resulting from the Pilot Program. Such evidence may b

3
demonstrated by reasonable methodologies.
4

5

77. The USCIS Service Center thereafter adjudicates the 1-526 petition.

6 If the Service determines the immigrant investor has met the requirements of IN
7
8 § 203(b)(5), the petition is approved and a Notice of Approval is sent to the

9 immigrant investor. The immigrant investor and his dependents then obtai
10
conditional lawful permanent resident status either by visa processing at a Stat
11
12 Department consular post or through adjustment of status in the United States by

13
the Service. Upon entering the United States or completion of the adjustment o
14
15 status process, the immigrant investor and his or her dependents are admitted fo

16 permanent residence on a conditional basis. Thereafter, and within the 90-da
17
period before the second anniversary of the alien's lawful admission for permanen
18

19 residence, the immigrant investor must file an 1-829 to have the conditional statu

20
removed.
21

22

78. The adjudication of the 1-829 by the Service is not a readjudication o

23 the underlying investment. According to both the current version of IN
24
25 §216A(c)(3)(A) and (d)(l), 8 U.S.C. §1186b(c)(3)(A) and (d)(l) and the statuto

26 version that existed at the time of the adjudication of Plaintiffs' petitions, th
27

28

41

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 44 of 115 Page ID #:4010
Service is not allowed tore-adjudicate the facts underlying the 1-526 petition whe
2 adjudicating the I-829, but merely verify that the investor has invested or is
3
actively investing the requisite capital and that the investment has been sustained
4
5 in conformance with the requirements of the statute. An I-829 must b 6 accompanied by evidence that (1) the investor invested or is actively in the process
7
8 of investing the requisite capital in the qualifying enterprise, and (2) the investo
9 has in good faith sustained those actions throughout the two-year period of th
10
alien's residency in the United States. The Service has stated that the requiremen
II
12 that the immigrant investor has sustained his investment during the two years wil
13
be considered "flexibly." The documentary requirements for the I-829 are minimal
14
15 according to the Service's own guidelines because similar, substantia
16 documentation is presented at the first (I-526) stage of the process. The immigran
17
investor must also submit evidence that he created or can be expected to create 10
18
19 full-time jobs for qualifying employees. If the investment is in a regional center,
20
the employment creation aspect may be met through indirect as well as direc
21
22 employment. In the case of a "troubled business," the immigrant investor c 23 demonstrate the commercial enterprise maintained the number of existin
24
25 employees at no less than the pre-investment level for the period following th
26 investor's admission as a conditional permanent resident. If the immigran
27 28
42

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 45 of 115 Page ID #:4011

investor properly demonstrates the I-829 requirements, his conditional status is t

2 be removed and he will become a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
3
The decision on the 1-829 petition must be made by the Service within 90 days o
4
5 the date of filing the petition or within 90 days of an interview, unless th

6 interview is waived by the Service, whichever is later.

7

8

The Investment Program Through AIS and Plaintiffs' Investments

9

79. The Plaintiff Investors all invested in partnerships established throug

10
American Immigration Services ("AIS"). These partnerships had virtually identical
II

12 program elements and structure. All of the AIS partnerships that Plaintiffs investe

13
in had programs and elements that complied fully with existing and longstanding
14

1

15 Service rules, requirements, interpretations and pronouncements regarding th

I

16 Immigrant Investor Law.

17
80. Plaintifflnvestors through these partnerships invested the $500,000 o
18

19 $1,000,000 as required by law by placing cash and promissory notes for the full
20
amount with the partnerships. Typically, the investor would make a substantial
21
22 initial cash payment of $125, 000, $200,000, or $300,000, plus a promissory not

23 for the remainder in a $500,000 investment, or $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000
24
25 plus a promissory note for the remainder in a $1,000,000 capital investment. The

26 balance of the promissory note was generally required to be paid in four or five
27

28

43

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 46 of 115 Page ID #:4012

annual installments followed by a final balloon payment, which was to be pai

2 after the two-year conditional period had expired and the immigrant investor ha
3
achieved lawful permanent resident status. The initial cash payment was held in a
4
5 escrow account until the necessary approvals on the I-526 petitions were receive

6 · from the Service and the investor and his or her family became conditionallawfu
7
8 permanent residents through adjustment of status or an immigrant visa. Upo

9 receipt of such approvals, the Plaintiff was admitted as a partner in one of the AIS
10
limited partnerships and the escrowed funds were released to the business entities
II
12 connected with the investment program to commence satisfaction of the job

13
creation requirements.
14

15

81. The AIS limited partnership represented the investment vehicle forth

16 Plaintiff Investor. The partnership aggregated (or pooled) many immigran
17
investors and located a qualified business in which to invest.
18

19

82. The Plaintiff Investors' funds were then used to make an equity

20
investment in the selected business in accordance with the investment program'
21

22 requirements. Funds which were not needed for immediate business operations, ·

23 some partnerships, were placed in a trust for the benefit of the business an
24
25 partnership. The trust funds could only be used for legitimate business purposes,

26 but notwithstanding the use of the trust, those funds could still be· accessible to
27

28

44

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 47 of 115 Page ID #:4013

creditors. The trust provision, therefore, ensured that while the investment in th

2 business was an equity investment, the Plaintiff Investor had

3
management of the business, and the funds were at risk.
4

5

83. Under most, but not all, investor agreements, the partnership agreed to

6 pay the immigrant investor a minimum annual return on the invested cash base
7
8 upon the partnership having available funds. The immigrant investor was als

9 granted an option to see his limited partnership interest back to the .partnership
lO
after the balance of the promissory note was fully paid. The partnership had
1l

12 corresponding option to buy back the Plaintiff Investor's limited partnershi

13
interest at that time. Both of these transactions were widely accepted standar

il

14

15 business practices for concluding an equity investment.

16

84. Another program element typically included m most investmen

17
agreements between the Plaintiff Investors and the AIS partnerships was
18

I

19 provision allowing for the deduction of reasonable management fees and costs as

20
part ofthe investment.
21

22

The Plaintifflnvestors' Applications and the Defendant's Response

23

85. Pursuant to the Defendant's directives, each Investor Plaintif

24

25 separately filed an I-526 petition, accompanied by exhaustive evidence describing,

26 inter alia, the investment and investment program elements, including but no
27

28

45

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 48 of 115 Page ID #:4014
limited to, the use of a limited partnership, promissory note, business trust,
2 redemption provision, and the provision for an annual return on the invested cash.
3
The Service, upon a thorough review of each and every Investor Plaintiffs I-52
4
5 petition, and the application of the existing rules, requirements, and regulations 6 approved each and every I-526 petition filed by the Investor Plaintiffs. Thereafter,
7
8 the Service granted adjustment of status or the Department of State grante
9 immigrant visas to the Plaintiffs. These numerous approvals were made by th
10
Service and the Department of State with full knowledge and disclosure of all
11
12 elements and structure of the investment programs at issue. The Plaintiffs file
13
their I-526 petitions separately and on different dates. Each I-526 was individuall
14
15 reviewed, evaluated, and ultimately approved by a different Service official on
16 different date. It was not coincidence, therefore, that each Service official
17
evaluated and approved each individual I-526 petition by applying the identical,
18
19 existing Service rules, policies, procedures, and guidelines to determine whethe
20
the individual investment at issue met the qualifYing criteria for approval under the
21
22 law. Further, and not coincidentally, thousands of other petitions separately file
23 by other immigrant investors containing the same or similar investment features as
24
25 those of the Plaintiffs, were independently evaluated and approved by various
26 Service officials at various times in compliance with the Service's existing rules,
27
28
46

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 49 of 115 Page ID #:4015

policies and guidance prior to unlawful precedent decisions, again resulting ·

2 approvals.
3
86. In addition to these and other consistent approvals by the Service o
4
5 investor petitions containing identical investor program elements, the Service an

6 the Department of State promised, represented, and assured the Partnerships, thei
7
8 partners, representatives, and agents that their investment programs fully complie

9 with the Immigrant Investor Law, the Pilot Program, and the relevant existing rules
10
and regulations. Through their approval of each and every I-526 petition for eac
11
12 investor and through .numerous published opinions and policies, the Service an

13
the Department of State repeatedly and publicly assured and represented tha
14
15 petitions containing investment programs identical to those offered by th

16 Partnerships would not be a cause to deny a petition which was otherwis
17
approvable.
18

19

87. Prior to the Service's unlawful adoption of its new rules an

' '

20

requirements, the Service's statements, memoranda, and field instructions

21

22 expressly approved of the structure and elements of the investment programs a

23 issue. Moreover, the Service and Department of State, since the passage of th
24
25 Immigrant Investor Law, consistently approved immigrant investor petitions,

26 issued immigrant visas, granted adjustment of status, granted conditional lawfu
27

28

47

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 50 of 115 Page ID #:4016

permanent resident status, and removed the two-year condition to such status, t
1

2 thousands of alien entrepreneurs who participated in investor programs containin
3
some or all of the investment structure and elements at issue here. Indeed, no sue
4
5 petition or application was ever denied based upon these same or simi!

6 investment features prior to the Defendant's unlawful and wholesale revision ofth ·
7
8 Immigrant Investor Law's rules and requirements.

9

88. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the Defendant's rules, regulations,

10
assurances, representations, statements, and promises that the investment programs
11

12 offered by the Partnerships fully complied with the law and. that their I-526 and I

13
829 petitions would be approved. The Investor Plaintiffs would not have mad
14
15 these substantial investments, uprooted their families, and immigrated to th

16 United States had·they known that the Defendant would unlawfully change the
17
rules and requirements in mid-stream.
18

19

89. The Service proclaimed and promised as early as 1996 that any ne

20
rules or requirements relating to the Immigrant Investor Law would b
21

22 promulgated in accordance with the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative

23 Procedures Act and would only be applied prospectively. In December 1997,
24
25 however, the Service abruptly and radically changed its rules and requirements,

26 without notice and comment, for adjudicating petitions under the Immigran
27

28

48

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 51 of 115 Page ID #:4017

Investor Law. In addition, the Service instructed that its new rules an

2 requirements would be applied retroactively to immigrant investors, like th
3
Plaintiffs, who had achieved lawful conditional permanent resident status, but who
4
s had yet to have their two-year conditions removed.

6

90. Subsequent to the Investor Plaintiffs' obtaining their conditiona

7

8 residency, and as detailed in this Complaint, the Service unlawfully an

9 unconstitutionally changed the criteria for an acceptable investment an
10
determined that the structure used by the partnership was no longer permissible
II
12 under Service regulations.

13
91. Following the expiration of five (5) years after the grant of certa·

Investor Plaintiffs' (and their family members') conditional residency status, many

individuals applied for naturalization. By virtue of prior orders of this Court, th

delays that many plaintiffs had experienced were alleviated and many plaintiffs i

the prior "Category 2" and "Category 3" subclasses were adjudicated. See Exhibi

W. To date, forty-six (46) individuals have received decisions denying their N

400s applications for naturalization and have appealed the denial of those decision

by requesting an N-336 hearing. See sample N-400 denials at Exhibit X. Forty

four (44) of the forty-six (46) proposed subclass members have attended their N

26 336 hearings. See Exhibit W.
27
28

Of those individuals, twenty-three (23) hav

49

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 52 of 115 Page ID #:4018

received decisions upholding the denials of their naturalization applications. Se
1

2 sample N-336 fmal denials at Exhibit Y. The denials at both levels were based o
3
an across-the-board finding of ineligibility for naturalization due to the applicants'
4
5 present status as conditional permanent residents. Moreover, the decisions a!

6 contained similar boilerplate language alleging that the applicant or the principal
7
8 investor-family member in question had filed to make the appropriate investmen

9 and/or otherwise failed to comply with the EB-5 program and that the applican
10
had failed to overcome the basis ofthe initial N-400 denial.
11

12

Rules and Authority Relied Upon by Plaintiffs

13
92. The Plaintiffs invested in Partnerships with investment structures tha
14
15 had been approved by and were in fact based upon the authoritative writte

16 precedent, regulations, directives, and practice of the Service and Department o
17
State. Each of the now challenged program elements had been previously
18

19 approved by the Service or the Department of State in hundreds, if not thousands,
20
of cases and in one or more of the following authoritative written and publishe
21
22 directives, adjudications, public statements, and opinions, constituting the availabl

23 administrative jurisprudence as to the interpretation and implementation of th
24
25 Immigrant Investor Law, as well as other oral and written statements,

26

27

28

50

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 53 of 115 Page ID #:4019

pronouncements, and opinions, which include, but are not limited to, the followin
1

2 which are discussed in this Complaint:

3
a. The August 31, 1993 decision of the Service's Administrativ
4

5

Appeals Unit ("AAU") (now know as the "AAO"), which affirme

I

6

7

8

a district director's decision approving a petition containing promissory note (Exhibit C);

9

b. The September 10, 1993 Memorandum Opinion of the OG

10
(Exhibit A);
11

12

c. A September 24, 1993 letter from Lawrence Weinig, the Servic

13
official in charge of administering the Immigrant Investor Law
14

15

(Acting Associate Commissioner for Examinations), whic

16

discusses the use of an investment fund as a new commercia

17

18

enterprise (Exhibit D);

19

d. An October 20, 1993 letter from R. Michael Miller, Actin

20
Assistant Commissioner, to Michael Aytes, Director of Servic
21

22

Center Operations, directing the September 24, 1993 letter fro

23

Weinig be distributed to the Eastern, Northern, and Wester

24

25

Service Centers (Exhibit E);

26

27

28

51

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 54 of 115 Page ID #:4020

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

!0

11

12

13

il

14

n

~~

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

e. An OGC Memorandum Opinion dated June 27, 1995, whic concludes that the Service's regulations do not require that th indebtedness of an investor meet the requirements of a secured transaction under Article 9 of the Commercial Code (Exhibit B);
f. An August 10, 1995 letter from the Service's Chief of Immigran Branch Adjudications, which addresses the issues of job-creation pooled investments in venture capital funds, capital in export generating businesses, non-immigrant investors, and capital bein placed "at risk" (Exhibit F);
g. A December 21, 1995 letter from Michael Straus, Acting Chie Immigrant Branch, Adjudications, and Service official in charge o administering the Immigrant Investor Law, which addresses petitioner's role in management of a new commercial enterpris and promissory notes as qualifYing capital (Exhibit G);
h. Service Field instructions to Service Centers, dated October 20, 1997, expressly approving each of the program elements (Exhibi H);
I. A December 19, 1997 OGC Memorandum Opinion discussin some ofthe program's elements (Exhibit I); and
52

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 55 of 115 Page ID #:4021

J. A history of consistent, uniform and repeated Service an

2

3

4

I

5

I

6

'!

7

8

Department of State approvals of thousands of immigrant investo petitions, applications for immigrant visas, petitions to adjus status, applications to enter the United States as conditionallawfu permanent residents, and petitions to remove the two-yea conditions.

9

93. The above directives and opm10ns flowed from the Immigran

10
Investor Program's statutory or regulatory framework, official directives to
ll

12 Service's adjudicating officers in the field, and longstanding and consisten

13
adjudications. Each was a part of the rules that governed the Defendant's
14
15 adjudication ofi"526 and I-829 petitions at the time that the Defendant granted th

16 Plaintiffs' conditional residence by placing its imprimatur of approval on the"

17

'I

investments.

I

18

19

The Unlawful Adoption and Retroactive

20

Application of New Rules by the Service

21

94. In 1996, the Service became concerned about some of the features o

22
some of the programs that were being submitted for its approval and questione
23

24 whether those features complied with the Immigrant Investment Program's
25
statutory authority. These features included passive versus active participation in
26
27 an investment, pooled investments, and promissory notes.

28

53

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 56 of 115 Page ID #:4022

95. At an August 23, 1996 meeting, which included everyone in th

2 Service making relevant decisions as to the Immigrant Investor Program at th
3
time, Service officials agreed that the applications being considered did not compl
4
5 with the law, and that the then current regulations were inadequate to deal with th

6 Service's issues as to some features under the Immigrant Investor Program tha
7
8 were being approved. However, the Service continued to approve the I-52

9 applications. Rather than end approvals or seek revocation of approved petitions
10
that the Defendant believed were unapprovable, the Defendant continued to
11
12 approve petitions and did not revoke petitions. Instead, the Service decided to wai

13
for the 1-829 applications and deny those under the new standards. See (Exhibit
14
15 (August 26, 1996 email discussing the August 23, 1996 meeting).

16

96. The Service initially thought these concerns could be dealt with by

17
drafting written guidance to the Service's field offices. The OGCadvised that sue
18

19 changes to the program standards had to be accomplished by means of a rule
20
making proceeding. The Service brought in officers from three (3) Service Centers
21
22 and began drafting new Immigrant Investor Program regulations. To date, th

23 Service has never promulgated those regulations..

24

25

97. Katherine Lorr, who headed the regulation drafting team, ''was tol

26 very firmly by HQCOU that for, APA reasons, we needed new regs to deal with all
27

28

54

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 57 of 115 Page ID #:4023

of the substantive issues that had to be addressed at that time." (Email Katherin
I

2 Lorr (12/2/97)) (emphasis added) (Exhibit K).
3
98. On October 20, 1997, the Service's Office of Adjudications ("OA'')
4
5 issued field instruction to all Service Regional Directors (Exhibit H) to provide

6 ''guidance on adjudicating Form I-526, Petition for Alien Entrepreneur, unde
7
8 section 203(b)(5) of the INA, and existing regulations." The Office o
9 Adjudications reiterated the Service's prior practice of approving 1mm1gran 10
investor petitions with features, as exist in the AIS investment program, such as:
11
12 pooling funds where limited partners' capital was invested in a portfolio o

13
investments within the regional center, limited partners joining partnerships 14 15 subsequent to their formation, redemption agreements; the payment of reasonabl

16 management and other fees; and guaranteed interest returns on the cas 17 18 investment. These program elements had long been recognized by the Service as

19 complying with the Immigrant Investor Law and its regulations, which i 20
confirmed by the approvals of thousands of immigrant investor petitions tha 21

22 contained investments in programs with some or all of these program elements. A

23 that time, the Service's position was that "everything else was to be dealt with i 24
25 new [regulations]." (Email Katherine Lorr) (12/2/97)) (Exhibit K).

•j

26

27

28

55

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 58 of 115 Page ID #:4024

99. Notwithstanding the guidance issued by the Service on October 20,

2 1997 to ensure the continued operation of the Immigrant Investor Program, th
3
Service, on or before December 1, 1997, secretly directed all Service Centers t
4
5. freeze adjudicating petitions involving pooled investment programs, such as AIS's

6 program. Subsequently, and at the Service's request, the Department of Stat
7
8 issued a similar freeze on visa applications containing these programs. Th

9 institution of this unlawful "freeze" was concealed from United States businesses
10
such as the Partnerships, which were using their investment programs to rais
11
12 substantial sums of capital and create or maintain employment, and from

13
immigrant investors such as the Plaintiffs, who had invested substantial capital int
14
15 such programs and who were filing visa petitions on the basis of those same

16 investments. The Service's unlawful freeze on adjudications was subsequently
17
publicly confirmed in the Service's Field Instruction of March 11, 1998 (Exhibi
18

19 L). The freeze was issued for the purpose of stopping action on cases until i

20
could issue new regulations.
21

22

100. On December 10, 1997, the Department of State issued a Stat

23 Department Cable to all diplomatic and consular posts instructing them t
24
25 immediately suspend visa processing in certain immigrant-investor cases becaus

26 the Department of State had been informed by the Office of Programs at Service
27

28

56

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 59 of 115 Page ID #:4025

Headquarters that the Service was "undertaking a review of some ofthe provisions
1

2 of various types of investment and partnership agreements which many applicants
3
have used to obtain petition approval in the EB-5 [immigrant entrepreneur]
4
5 category." The Department of State suspension was likewise issued to fteez

6 adjudication while new regulations could be issued.

7

8

101. Instead of commencing a rulemaking proceeding, the Service adopte

9 an unlawful approach to changing the rules governing the Immigrant Investo

10
Program.
11

12

102. In early December of 1997, the Service decided not to publish th

13
rules it had prepared in fmal form to alter the Immigrant Investor Program.

Defendant decided to circumvent the notice and comment requirements of the AP

by issuing an OGC Memorandum Opinion and then enforce its contents throug

field instructions directing Service employees on how to adjudicate cases.

103. On December 19, 1997, the OGC issued a thirty-six page !ega

memorandum, which provided specific guidelines changing the Immigrant Investo

Program (Exhibit I). These guidelines rejected previously approved investrnen

programs stating their program elements or structure would no longer comply wi
24
25 the Immigrant Investor Law. The OGC Memorandum Opinion also determine
26
27
28

57

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 60 of 115 Page ID #:4026

these new rules and requirements were to be applied retroactively to conditional
1

2 residents, like the Plaintiffs.
3
104. The OGC's December 19, 1997 Memorandum Opinion (Exhibit I),
4
5 was made into a directive having the force of law in a March 11, 1998 Fie!

6 Memorandum (Exhibit L). The December 19, 1997 OGC Memorandum and th
7
8 March 11, 1998 Field Memorandum altered and amended the regulations and mad

9 the following features impermissible: (1) the use of a cash down payment with the
10
remainder of the investor's contribution in promissory notes; (2) a multi-ye
11
12 investment plan on a promissory note with a substantial balloon payment after th

13
conditions on the investor's permanent residence is removed; (3) an option given

14

'I
.I

15 to the investor to sell the investment for a fixed price that may be Jess than, equal

16 to, or greater than the alien's cash contribution; (4) an option given to th
17
enterprise or limited partnership to buy the investment at a fixed price; (5)
18

19 provision that allows or requires the commercial enterprise to place sufficient cas
20
into a bank account to guarantee that funds will be availableto repay the investor i
21
22 the sell option is exercised; (6) withholding a portion of the capital contribution fo

23 attorneys' fees, finders' fees, and other management costs; and (7) a guarantee
24
25 return on the cash portion of the investment. Prior to this date,· each of thes

26 investor program elements had been approved by each and every relevant Servic
27

28

58

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 61 of 115 Page ID #:4027

adjudication, statement, and operating instruction. Moreover, since 1992, th

2 Service had consistently approved thousands of immigrant investor petitions
3
involving petitioners, including Investor Plaintiffs, who had participated in investo
4
5 programs containing some or all ofthese program elements.

6

105. The Service's March 11, 1998 Field Memorandum instructed al

7

8 Service Centers to place all immigrant investor petitions involving "pooled'

9 investments on "hold," and to immediately cease the adjudication of all such cases
lO
because the OGC had determined that "although some business agreements used in
11
12 current investment programs originally appeared to constitute acceptabl

13

:j

investment arrangements, they in fact did not comport with the law because they
14

I '

15 contained some combination of the provisions held to be invalid in the Decembe

16 19, 1997 OGC opinion." In other words, the Service's Field Memorandum directe

17
18 all Service and Department of State offices to follow the purported rules an

19 requirements adopted and reflected in the OGC's December 19, 1997

20
Memorandum, and to apply them retroactively.
21

22

106. The Service was fully aware that the December 19, 199

23 Memorandum and the later field instructions departed both abruptly and radically
24
25 from existing Service policy and practice thereby constituting an amendment o

26 existing regulations. Moreover, the Service was fully aware that a retroactiv
27

28

59

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 62 of 115 Page ID #:4028

application of the new interpretations would impermissibly burden and ha

2 individual investors who had relied on the Service's prior consistent application o
3
the Immigrant Investor Law. Indeed, as the Service was in the process of radically
4
5 revising its prior consistent policy, those Service officials charged with this tas

6 repeatedly acknowledged that the type of changes envisioned should not b

I

7

8 retroactively applied and should indeed be the subject of new regulations.

9

107. On November 14, 1997, Katherine Lorr requested that Alex Gisse

10
"revisit" his September 10, 1993 HQCOU opinion concerning arrangements wi
II

12 Promissory Notes that contained a buy-back/balloon payment "as the basis for

13 major policy change." (Lorr Email 11/14/97)(emphasis added) (Exhibit M). I
14
15 addition to discussing requirements for promissory notes, Katherine Lorr expressly

16 acknowledged the issue of fairness in retroactively applying the rules. As she
17
18 stated:

':)

19

Policy changes of the kind I am suggesting could not be retroactive.

20
And we do need to advise the public of prospective changes and
21

22

explain why these are necessary. But AILA is apparently jumping

23

into this arena and we need to be more forthcoming about what is

24

25

acceptable within the statute and what is not.

26 (Lorr Emai111/14/97)(emphasis added) (Exhibit M).
27

is

60

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 63 of 115 Page ID #:4029

108. On December 30, 1997, Katherine Lorr further highlighted the nee

3
correction in policy, and we need to do this in a very positive and forward lookin
4
5 manner and not take a position that will unnecessaril hurt individuals who hav

6 relied on the prior decisions." (Lorr Email (12/30/97) (Exhibit N).

I

7

'

8

109. An Options Paper, dated January 6, 1998 (Exhibit 0), recommende

9 that the Service "[p]ublish a notice in the Federal Register that the INS will b
10
immediately enforcing current regulations as set forth in the General Counsel's
11
12 opinion, and deny such petitions based on the General Counsel's conclusion tha

13

they fail to comport with current regulations on a number of grounds." From this

:J

14

il

15 point, it is clear that the Service concluded it would be detrimental to its legal

16 position if it published new regulations.
17
110. A January 14, 1998 email (Exhibit P) from the Service's Depu
18

19 General Counsel states that the Service does not want to wait for new regulations:
20
"I have thought further re the notice v. notice of reg issue .. .I am not convinced tha
21
zz we can wait for a new reg, or notice of a new reg. Indeed, I feel that reliance on

23 new reg may, or will, put our position in jeopardy."

24

25

111. Another email dated the following day, January 15, 1998 (Exhibit Q

26 from an attorney in the OGC, indicates the agency was receiving advice from th
27

28

61

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 64 of 115 Page ID #:4030
Department of Justice that its revision of the standards governing the EB5 progra
2 effectively constituted rulemaking.
3
112. Notwithstanding a clear awareness of the substantial burdens and
4
5 harm the new policies would have on previously approved investors, the Servic 6 chose to apply the new requirements, as set forth and reflected. in its December 19,
7
8 1997 Memorandum Opinion, retroactively to immigrant investors who ha
9 achieved lawful permanent residence, such as the Plaintiffs, but who have not as
10
yet had their two-year conditions removed. The new requirements also were to b
11
12 retroactively applied to those immigrant investors (1) who filed petitions that wer
13
already approved and were awaiting interviews for adjustment of status to receiv
14
15 conditional lawful permanent residence, and (2) who had filed petitions that ha
16 not yet been adjudicated because of the (unlawful) Service freeze or hold.
17
113. The opinions, interpretations, and requirements announced m th
18
19 Field Memorandum attaching the OGC Memorandum amended existing Servic
20
regulations and were contradictory to written opinions of the Servic
21
22 Administrative Appeals Office, prior written opinions of the OGC, as well as th 23 rules the Service had consistently applied over many years in adjudicatin
24
25 thousands of immigrant investor petitions. They were also contradictory to the
26 Service's promises, representations, and assurances made to United State.
27
28
62

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 65 of 115 Page ID #:4031

businesses such as AIS Partnerships and to immigrant investors such as th
1

2 Plaintiffs. The Service's prior pronouncements and practice, as well as existin
3
regulations, had the force of law since they were binding on Service
4
s Department of State employees who adjudicated the Plaintiffs' petitions.

6 addition, these were binding with respect to each of the Plaintiffs' 1-82
7
8 applications.

9

114. In fact, on information and belief, since the enactment of th

10
n Immigrant Investor Law in 1990 until 1997, not a single immigrant investo

12 petition, visa application, petition to adjust status, or petition to remove the two

13

~ '
.

year condition was ever denied or rejected solely because of the use of one of the
14
15 above-stated investment program structures or elements.

16

115. The Service made a clear change in policy that was to effect numerous

17
18 immigrant investors who were to rely on the Service's decisions without informin

19 the immigrant investor's of their intent.
20
116. In January 1998, the Service initiated a process that circumvented th
21
22 APA by selecting specific cases to be used as "precedent decisions" in order to

23 apply the new rules stated in the OGC's December 19, 1997 Memorandum
24
25 Opinion. The Service's Office of Programs, consistent with the Defendant's pia

26 to avoid publication in the Federal Register and the notice and commen
27

28

63

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 66 of 115 Page ID #:4032
requirements, ordered each of the Service's four Service Centers to select cases
1
2 that raised the issues in the OGC's December 19, 1997 Memorandum Opinion an
3
forward those cases to the AAO to become "precedent" decisions. Four Servic
4
. 5 officers were selected to manage certification of cases to the Administrativ
6 Appeals Office. The officers were sent the OGC Memorandum Opinion so tha
7
8 they could ensure that "all issues raised in the opinion are covered in the case
9 certified." (Exhibit R) (Lorr 1/28/98 (4:32PM)).
10
117. While the Service was secretly organizing to apply retroactively it
II
12 unlawfully promulgated new rules to the detriment of Plaintiff Investors who had
13
received conditional residency, each of the Plaintiffs were in the process o
14
15 relocating to the United States at great expense, establishing themselves in thei
16 communities, enrolling their children in school, and investing their assets, time,
17
18 and hard work, either in new careers or in private businesses, to create a successfu 19 future for their families and the betterment of this country. While the Servic
20
concealed its plans to retroactively apply these new rules, Plaintiffs sold homes an
21
22 businesses, often leaving successful and profitable jobs. The Defendant and it
23 agents were fully aware of the substantial commitments that the Plaintiffs wer
24
25 undertaking in reliance on the prior rules under which their conditional residenc
26 had been granted. However, because the Defendant concealed its intentions,
27
28
64

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 67 of 115 Page ID #:4033

Plaintiffs are now faced with having to discard all that they worked to establish i

2 the United States in order to return to their native lands, where many have sold and

3
given up everything.
4

5

118. On June 26, 1998, Joseph R. Greene, the Acting Associat

6 Commissioner of Programs issued a memorandum explaining that the AAO ha
7
8 received 19 immigrant investor petitions on certification from the four Servic

9 Centers (pursuant to the March 11, 1998, Operating Instruction (Exhibit L), an
10
was preparing decisions on these cases. The Service would then designate certai
11
12 "precedent decisions" from these 19 certified cases (Exhibit S) (June 26, 1998

13

I
~I

Joseph R. Greene memorandum superseding prior June 12, 1998 memorandum).
14

15

119. The AAO, however, is part of the Service Office of Adjudications

16 and is under the direct supervision of the Service management team. Furthe
17
belying the independence and impartiality of the AAO is the fact that i
18

19 periodically consults and in fact did consult with the Service's Office of General
20
Counsel (author of the December 19, 1997 Memorandum setting out the new rules
21
22 and requirements for immigrant investor petitions), as well as other Service offices

23 before issuing the "precedent decisions" certified to it from the regional servic
24
25. centers. The AAO submitted its proposed decisions in each of the preceden

26 decisions to the OGC for its review and approval prior to the publication by th
27

28

65

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 68 of 115 Page ID #:4034

AAO of these decisions. In sum, the AAO simply lacks the independence to fairly
1

2 and impartially decide administrative appeals. The OGC, through its !ega
3
memorandum of December 19, 1997, ensured the outcome of these cases that no
4
5 pending or previously approved immigrant investor petitions would be foun

6 approvable under the Service's new rules and requirements.

7

8

120. Notwithstanding the AAO's lack of independence and the Service'

9 use of the AAO merely to circumvent APA notice and comment requirements, the
10
AAO in June and July, 1998 issued four so-called "precedent" decisions a!
II
12 denying the petitions of investors. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I & N Dec. 158 (Assoc.

13
Comm. Exams. 1998); Matter of lzumii, 22 I & N Dec. 169 (Assoc. Comm.
14
15 Exams. 1998); Matter of Hsuing, 22 I & N Dec. 201 (Assoc. Comm. Exams.

16 1998); Matter of Ho, 22 I&N Dec. 206 (Assoc Comm. Exams. 1998). Thes
17
18 decisions are collectively referred to as the Izumii decisions.

19

121. The lzumii decisions merely put in "precedent" form the OGC

20
Memorandum and the rules and regulations the Service had previously refused to
21

22 publish in December 1997 in accordance with the notice and comment provision

23 of the APA. These new rules and requirements amended existing regulations an
24
25 were radically contrary to the existing rules, requirements, policies, and procedures

26 applied by the Service in all prior adjudications over a six-year period. Thes
27

28

66

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 69 of 115 Page ID #:4035

drastic changes, which will result in the denial of all Investor Plaintiffs' I-82
1

2 applications to lift their conditional residency, are as follows:

3
Rule 1. Time of Establishment.
4

5

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

6

regulations permit the establishment of a new

7

8

commercial enterprise by multiple limited partners who

9

invest in a limited partnership after the time the limited

10
partnership was legally formed. This is confirmed by the
11

12

regulations, field instructions, and consistent

13
adjudication, which contemplate investments under th~
14

15

Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which has no

16

limitation on the timing of a person's investment 8

17
C.F.R. § 204.6(g); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(5)(iii); 8 C.F.R. §
18

19

204.6(e); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(iii).

20
New Rule: In order for a petitioner to be considered to
21

22

have established an original business, he must have had a

23

hand in the original creation of the new commercial

24

25

enterprise and must have been present at its inception.

26

Any investor who was not a member of the partnership at

27

28

67

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 70 of 115 Page ID #:4036

the time it was established is automatically disqualified.

2

The new requirement is unworkable and illogical as it

3
would have the investor agree to make an investment
4

5

before he knew about the investment or business plan,

6

since no business has yet been formed. Now the investor

7

8

is required to be a partner at the time of the paper

9

formation of the partnership even if the new partnership

10
has not conducted business. Plaintiffs joined AIS as
II

12

limited partners subsequent to the paper formation and,

13
therefore, this amendment alone results in the denial of
14

15

all of the Plaintiffs' I-829s. Although Congress has

16

abolished the requirement specified in Jzumii, USCIS has

17
not yet published regulations receding from its position
18

19

in the Izumii decisions. See "21 '1 Century Department of

20
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act," enacted
21

22

November 2, 2002, Pub.L.No. 102-273, 116 Stat. 1758

23

(Title I, Subtitle B).

24

25

Rule 2. Nature of Participation in Enterprise.

26

27

28

68

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 71 of 115 Page ID #:4037

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

I

14

)

'-!

15

16

l7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations provide that Investors are "sufficiently engaged in the management of the new commercial enterprise" even if they were not active limited partners, so long as the Investor had certain rights, powers, and duties normally granted to limited partners under the (Revised) Uniform Limited Partnership Act. 8 C.F.R. 204.6(j)(5)(iii); September 10, 1993 Office of General Counsel Memorandum (Exhibit A at page 6). New Rule: A limited partner is required to show that he has greater involvement than that which is required under the Uniform Limited Partnership Act, which thus amends 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(5)(iii). Rule 3. Timing of Redemption Agreements. Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations permitted prom1ssory notes without limitations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e)("capital means cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, cash equivalents, and indebtedness secured by assets owned
69

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 72 of 115 Page ID #:4038

by the alien entrepreneur . . .")(emphasis added). In

2

addition, the Service issued and consistently applied a

3
field instruction and opinion of the Service OGC that
4

5

allowed for redemption agreements to be entered into

6

prior to the end of the two-year period of conditional

7

8

residence, so long as the redemption itself did not occur

9

until after the two-year period of conditional residence

10
or, in the case of a promissory note, after the promissory
II

12

note has been paid in full.

13
New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended the
14

15

regulations to add new conditions to promissory notes.

16

An alien may not enter into a redemption agreement with

17
the new commercial enterprise at any time prior to
18

19

completing all of his cash payments under a promissory

20
note, and in no event may the alien enter into · a
21

22

redemption agreement prior to the end of the twocyear

23

period of conditional residence.

24

25

Rule 4. Redemption Agreement as "At Risk"

26

Investment.

27

28

70

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 73 of 115 Page ID #:4039

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

2

regulations do not preclude redemption agreements.

3
Indeed, a September 10, 1993 Office of General Counsel
4

5

Memorandum (Exhibit A at page 8) expressly approved

6

of investments containing redemption agreements (which

7

8

provided for the redemption to take place after the two-

9

year period of conditional residency) to qualify as an "at

10
risk" investment where the redemption was payable ifthe
11

12

partnership or investment entity was successful, thus

13
earning a profit.
14

15

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended the

16

regulations to prohibit redemption agreements; A

17
redemption agreement between an alien investor and the
18

19

new commercial enterprise constitutes a debt.

20
arrangement.
21

22

Rule 5. Guaranteed Payments to Investors.

23

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

24

25

regulations do not preclude guaranteed payments to

26

investors and the regulations do not define the guaranteed

27

28

71

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 74 of 115 Page ID #:4040

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

:j

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

payment as a debt relationship. Indeed, the Service

issued, publicized, and consistently applied an express

field instruction allowing enterprises to make guaranteed

payments to investors, even while the investor still owes

money to the commercial enterprise. See September 10,

1993 Office of General Counsel Memorandum (Exhibit

A at page 10) ("we conclude that requiring alien

investors to place large amounts of capital at absolute

risk, without some private third-party guarantee that they

will receive a minimum rate of return on their investment

would not only be contrary to current reasonable business

practices, but would be violative of Congress's intent to

encourage foreign capital investment.").

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its rules,

so that an alien may not receive guaranteed returns from

a new commercial enterprise while he or she owes money

to the new commercial enterprise.

Rule 6.

Inclusion of Legitimate Business

Expenses.

72

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 75 of 115 Page ID #:4041

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

:1

14

I

15

'

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations do not preclude the deduction of legitimate business expenses from the capital contribution. In all prior AAO opinions and Service approvals, funds that were used to cover legitimate business, escrow and managerial expenses associated with the investment, were considered as investment capital at risk. The Service permitted all amounts attributable to the start-up of the new commercial enterprise, and other legitimate managerial, escrow and business expenses to be included in the total requisite amount ofthe capital contribution. New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended it rules so that the funds that are used for ordinary and necessary business expenses cannot be considered as part of the invested capital. Thus, all amounts attributable to start the new commercial enterprise, to pay for managerial or escrow fees associated therewith, or for any other legitimate business expense associated with the investment, are not part of total required investment
73

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 76 of 115 Page ID #:4042

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

i

13

.I

il

14

·!

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

amount, as they are not "employment-creating," 'jobrelated," or "profit-generating." Rule 7. Investments Benefiting Businesses Outside of Targeted Employment Area. Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations do not require that the employment be created only in a targeted employment area to qualifY for the reduced capital contribution. The Service consistently held that petitioners qualified for the reduced minimum capital requirement of $500,000.00 if their investment was made in a new commercial enterprise located within a targeted employment area. There was at no time any exclusion where businesses located outside the targeted area, in addition to those inside the targeted area, benefited from the investment. Indeed, the controlling statutory provision only states that the new commercial enterprise "create employment in a targeted employment area" 8 § 1153(5)(B), and not create employment exclusively in a targeted employment area. The sole purpose of the targeted employment area was to create
74

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 77 of 115 Page ID #:4043

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

11
.I

15

16

j

17

I

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

jobs in rural areas or areas of high unemployment. So long as this criteria was met, the benefit to additional businesses outside the targeted area in no way disqualified the investment from receiving the reduced minimum investment requirement. New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its rules so that regardless of its location, a new commercial enterprise that is engaged directly or indirectly in ·lending money to job-creating businesses may only lend money to businesses located within targeted areas in order for a petitioner to be eligible for the reduced minimum capital requirement. In other words, only businesses located in the targeted employment area may benefit from the investment. Rule 8. Location of New Commercial Business Relative to Job Creation. Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations permit petitioners to quality for the application of indirect job creation criteria if the investment was made in a new commercial business
75

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 78 of 115 Page ID #:4044

located within a regional center. There was never a

2

separate requirement imposed by the Service that all of

3
the petitioner's investment activities must benefit
4

5

businesses solely within the regional center in order for

6

the petitioner to qualifY for indirect job-creation criteria.

7

8

See 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(7).

9

New Rule: The Service has, m effect, amended its

10
regulations so that if a new commercial enterprise IS
11

12

engaged directly or indirectly in lending money to job-

13
creating businesses, such job-creating businesses must all
14

15

be located within the geographic limits of the regional

16

center. The location of the new commercial enterprise is

17

not controlling.
18

19

Rule 9. Proof of Lawful Source of Funds.

20
Prior Rule: The Service consistently and repeatedly
21

22

permitted petitioners to set forth in a sworn affidavit and

23

through minimal documentation, if any, that they had

24

25

obtained the investment funds through lawful means. If

26

the funds were supplied by a donor an affidavit by the

27

28

76

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 79 of 115 Page ID #:4045

petitioner to that effect was sufficient. Lawful funds were

2

broadly defined and only specifically excluded illegal

3
drug profits.
4

5

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its rules

6

to add new conditions to the existing regulation. A

7

8

petitioner must not only demonstrate that he is the legal

9

owner of the invested capital and that he acquired the

10
legal ownership of the invested capital through lawful
11

12

means, but he must trace the source of the funds over

13
many years including through donors. The definition of
14

15

unlawful .funds has been expanded to include funds

16

earned in the United States without work authorization.

17
The new "rule" now also requires that the person seeking
18

19

investor status must prove that United States citizen

20
investors who are involved in the investment (but
21

22

obviously not seeking any immigration benefit) have

23

provided funds for the investment project from a lawful

24

25

source before USCIS will approve the immigrant's

26

petition. The new "rule" is arbitrary and designed to

27

28

77

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 80 of 115 Page ID #:4046

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

I

14

I

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unlawfully defeat any valid petition as: (1) the petitioner cannot compel a U.S. citizen non-petitioning investor to provide his or her financial records and fmancial history if he or she refuses to do so; (2) there is no limit or boundary on the amount of financial information that
users can request; and (3) the users can routinely
utilize the resources of the CIA and FBI to trace the financial and work history of non-citizens on conditional resident status to uncover any prior unlawful activity. Rule 10. Escrow Accounts. Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's regulations permit investments that are placed in escrow accounts to meet the qualifYing capital contribution amount, and to be deemed a legal mechanism which places the funds sufficiently "at risk," regardless of whether the funds are in escrow pending the approval of the I-526 petition. There was never a requirement by the Service that the funds be "immediately," "unequivocally," and/or "irrevocably" released into the
78

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 81 of 115 Page ID #:4047

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

j

!j

14

•:

15

16

i

17

I

18

:-1

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

commercial enterprise for job creation purposes or a requirement that the petitioner establish that such an agreement was entered. New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its regulations to preclude placement of funds in an escrow account pending approval of conditional residence. If a petitioner places the investment funds in an escrow account pending the outcome of his I-526 petition, the funds are not deemed to have been placed at risk and no investment is deemed to have been made, unless the petitioner shows that the funds in escrow are actually committed to the new commercial enterprise, i.e. the funds will be available and put to use for job creation purposes immediately and irrevocably upon approval of the petition and visa issuance or adjustment of status. Rule 11. Supplementation or Modification of Petition to Ensure Compliance. Prior Rule: The Service regulations always permitted petitioners to rectifY errors or add or delete information from their petitions. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 103.28.
79

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 82 of 115 Page ID #:4048

New Rule: A petitioner may not make material changes.

2

to a petition that has already been filed (or even

3
approved) in an effort to achieve compliance or make an
4

5

apparently now "deficient" petition conform to the

6

Service's new retroactive requirements. Immigrant

7

8

investors, therefore, cannot "retroactively" amend their

9

petitions so as to cure any deficiencies caused by the

10
retroactive application of the Service's new rules and
11

12

requirements.

13
Rule 12. Valuation of Promissory Notes.
14

15

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

16

regulations do not preclude the valuation of promissory

17

notes at face value. This is confirmed by years of
18

19

administrative jurisprudence. See, e,g., Exhibit C

20
(August 31, 1993 AAU Decision). The regulations
21

22

permit promissory notes to be used as capital m

23

immigrant investments at face value. 8 C.F.R. §

24

25

206.6(e)(capital means "cash equivalent").

26

27

28

80

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 83 of 115 Page ID #:4049

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its

2

regulations to require that all capital must be valued at

3
fair market value in United States dollars, including
4

5

promissory notes used as capital. In determining the fair

6

market value of a promissory note, it is necessary to

7

8

consider, among other things, present value, as well as

9

the fair market value of the assets securing the note. The

10
fair market value of the promissory note can be reduced
II

12

by "considerable expense and effort" to execute on

13
foreign assets.
14

15

Rule 13. Term of Promissory Note.

16

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

17
regulations do not impose a particular term for the
18

19

repayment of the promissory note. Repayment terms

20
were bargained for between the parties and could extend
21

22

beyond the two-year conditional residency period. This is

23

in accordance with years of administrative jurisprudence,

24

25

normal business practices, and the Service's application

26

of the Immigrant Investor Law.

27

28

81

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 84 of 115 Page ID #:4050

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its

2

regulations so that the money due under a promissory

3
note must be payable within two years of obtaining
4

5

conditional residency and is without provision for

6

extensions. The new "rule" was imposed retroactively

7

8

upon people who had already agreed to promissory notes

9

with different terms. An investor who budgeted for a

10
five-year payment schedule was suddenly told the
11

12

payment schedule must be reduced to two years. On one

13
hand the Service changed the terms of the investment
14

15

after it approved the initial investment by reducing the

16

time for repayment on a promissory note; on the other

17
hand, because of other retroactive rule changes, it will
18

19

not allow amendments to the promissory note.. See Rule.

20
11 supra.
21

22

Rule 14. Perfection of Security Interest on

Promissory Note.
23

24

Prior Rule: The Immigrant Investor Program's

25
regulations do not require the security for the promissory
26

27

notes to be perfected or amenable to seizure under the

28

82

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 85 of 115 Page ID #:4051

UCC's perfected security interest standards. See, e.g., 8

2

C.F.R. § 204.6G)(2)(v) ("Evidence of any loan or

3
mortgage agreement, promissory note, security
4

5

agreement, or other evidence of borrowing which is

6

secured by assets of the petitioner, other than those of the

7

8

new commercial enterprise, and for which the petitioner

9

is personally and primarily liable."). Indeed, no such

10
requirement of a "perfected" security interest is contained
11

12

in the statute, regulations, or field instructions prior to the

13
Service's radical revision of the law. In fact, the
14

15

memorandum of June 27, 1995 sent by Paul Virtue,

16

Acting General Counsel to Edward Skerrett, Chief,

17
Immigrant Visa Section, defined what the Service meant
18

19

by the term "secured" as being "at the time he or she files

20
the visa petition, that he or she actually possesses, and
21

22

has secured personal assets having a fair market value of

23

at least that of the indebtedness." Following this·

24

25

memorandum, which was widely circulated through

26

professional journals, the Service routinely approved

27

28

83

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 86 of 115 Page ID #:4052

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

'i
15

I

I

16

I

i7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
25

26

27

28

petitions where the applicants' verifiable net worth exceeded the value of the promissory note. There was no. requirement to perfect the security interest by recording it as a matter of public record. New Rule: The Service has, m effect, amended its regulations to provide that a promissory note. secured by assets owned by a petitioner can constitute capital only if: it is secured by specifically identified assets which belong to the petitioner, the security interests in the note are perfected in the jurisdiction in which the assets are located, and the assets are fully amenable to seizure by a United States note holder. Rule 15. Trust Agreements. Prior Rule: The Inmiigrant Investor Program's regulations permit investments containing trust agreements. This is confirmed by consistent adjudication and field instructions. The Service recognized that the purpose of the trust is most beneficial where an investment was made in a "troubled business." In that
84

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 87 of 115 Page ID #:4053

instance, the trust will prevent the business from utilizing

2

all of the investment funds up-front and prevents the

3
funds from being immediately seized by creditors.
4

5

Furthermore, the Service permitted petitioners to place

6

their investments in escrow accounts pending the

7

8

approval of their I-526 petition. Third-party guarantees

9

were permitted by the Service so long as they were not

10
backed by a government obligation, and bank accounts
ll

12

qualified as security. See September 10, 1993 Office of

13
General Counsel Memorandum (Exhibit A).
14

15

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its

16

regulations to provide that capital invested using a· trust

17
reserve is not deemed "at risk."
18

19

Rule 16. Capital Availability to Employment

20

Creating Enterprise by Holding Companies.

21

Prior Rule: The Service's regulations do not require that

. 22
holding companies make the full amount of capital
23

24

available to the businesses responsible for creating the

25
employment.
26

27

28

85

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 88 of 115 Page ID #:4054

New Rule: The Service has, in effect, amended its

2

regulations so that if the new commercial enterprise is a

3
holding company, the full requisite amount of capital
4

5

must be made available to the business(es) most closely

6

responsible for creating the employment on which the

7

8

petition is based.

9

122. None of the requirements reflected in the so-called preceden

10
decisions were ever previously imposed by the Service or lawfully promulgated as
11

12 amendments to either the Immigrant Investor Law or its regulations. These ne

13
rules directly conflict with the imprimatur of approval that the Service placed o
14
15 each of the Plaintiffs' investments by approving their I-526 petitions.

16 Defendant may not rely on these self-proclaimed "precedent" decisions as th
17
AAO is incapable of properly issuing rules through adjudication, as it is not a
18

19 impartial and independent adjudicative body. Moreover, the AAO's "precedent'

20
decisions merely reflect the Service's new rules and requirements set forth in th
21
22 OGC's December 19, 1997 Memorandum, both of which were promulgated ·
"i
23 violation of the APA. Also, the retroactive application of these neW rules an
24
25 requirements is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

26

27

28

86

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 89 of 115 Page ID #:4055

123. The Defendant has instituted a policy and practice of denying th

2 Plaintiffs' I-829 petitions in a manner that is contrary to the law. Each denial o
3
one of the Plaintiffs' I-829 petitions invokes the new "rules" that were announce
4
5 in the OGC legal memorandum and are embodied in Izumii and its progeny. Thes

6 same new rules, which serve as the basis for denying the Plaintiffs' petitions, wer
7
8 not applied in the adjudication of the Plaintiffs' I-526 petitions. The Defendant'

9 asserted policy and practice of retroactively applying these new rules has resulte
10
and will result in the denial of all of the Plaintiff Investors I-829 petitions. All o
ll
12 the Plaintiffs' investments have one or more features that were previously lawful

13
and had received the Defendant's imprimatur of approval when their I-52
14

:J

15 petitions were favorably adjudicated, but are now considered impermissible in ligh

16 of Izumii and its progeny. Not a single immigrant investor, who invested in one o
17
AIS' limited partnerships, has received an approved I-829 petition since th
18

19 Defendant began engaging in its unlawful practice of retroactively applying ne

20
rules promulgated without the requisite notice and comment.
21

22

v. CAUSES OF ACTION

23

First Cause of Action: Improper Retroactive Application

24

25

124. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

26 length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.
27

28

87

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 90 of 115 Page ID #:4056

125. The Defendant, through its agents, has applied its new rules as

2 expressed in Matter of Izumii and its progeny and the General Counsel'

3
memorandum of December 19, 1997 retroactively.
4

I

s

126. The Defendant's retroactive application of its new rules, even i

I

6 regarded as interpretations, may not be applied retroactively to the detriment ofth

I

7

8 Plaintiff Investors and Partnerships. Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9t

9 Cir. 2003 ).
10
127. The retroactive application m fact irreparably harms an
11
12 impermissibly burdens Investor Plaintiffs because they have detrimentally relie

13
on the Defendant's former criteria when investing in the United States. By
14
15 applying new criteria to all Plaintiffs, which were not part of Investor Plaintiffs'

16 original applications and the AIS Partnerships' original programs, the Defendan
17
has rendered it impossible for Plaintiff Investors to achieve the removal of the'
18

19 conditional residency even if they complied with all requirements that wer
20
expected of them under the regulations regarding the removal of conditional
21
22 residency.

23

128. The new rules, even if regarded as interpretations, represent an abrup

24

25 departure from well-established policy and practice.

26

27

28

88

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 91 of 115 Page ID #:4057

129. The Plaintiffs relied greatly on the former rules, policies, and practice

2 of the Defendant with respect to the Immigrant Investor Program in making thei
3
investments. Indeed, the Partnerships and Plaintiffs relied specifically on these
4
5 rules and other representations of the Service in designing the investment program

6 in which the Plaintiffs participated.

7

8

130. The retroactive application of the new rules, even if regarded as

9 interpretations, place an extremely high burden on the Plaintiffs, who have sol
10
their homes and businesses, quit their jobs, and liquidated their assets in order to
11
12 make their investments and relocate to the United States. The Plaintiff Investors

13

.I

all now face revocation of their residence status, removal, and being barred from

14

15 returning to the United States for three or ten years.

16

131. The statutory interest in applying these new rules to the Plaintiffs' I

17
18 829 petitions does not outweigh Plaintiffs' reliance on Defendant'sprevious rules,

19 policies, practices, and more specifically the rules applied to the adjudication o

20
their I-526 petitions.
21

22

132. Even if characterized as interpretations, Plaintiffs have been and wil

23 continue to be irreparably injured to their detriment as a result of the Service'
24
25 retroactive application of its new rules.

26

27

28

89

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 92 of 115 Page ID #:4058

133. The Ninth Circuit, in Chang v. United States, 327 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.

2 2003), has already ruled that the Defendant and its agents may not retroactively
3
apply the rules, which are the subject of this litigation, to similarly situated
4
5 immigrant investor plaintiffs whose I-526 petitions have been approved before th

6 new rules were promulgated.

7

8

Second Cause of Action: Estoppel

9

134. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

10
length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.
II

12

135. From 1992 until the end of 1997, Service officials engaged in

13
pattern of conduct that affirmatively misrepresented the Immigrant Investo
14
15 program to Investor Plaintiffs and caused Investor Plaintiffs to rely, to thei

16 detriment, on such misrepresentations. As a result of this affirmative misconduct,
17
Investor Plaintiffs are unable to continue to comply with the statutory and
18

19 regulatory requirements of the Immigrant Investor Program.
20
136. Prior to the publication of regulations regarding the Immigran
21
22 Investor Program attorneys, including a former General Coul1sel of th

23 Immigration and Naturalization Service, Maurice Inman, met with officials of th
24
25 Defendant in regard to the program. As a result of these meetings Mr. Inman an

26 others were assured that the structure that Investor Plaintiffs ultimately invested i
27

28

90

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 93 of 115 Page ID #:4059

with AIS was consistent with the Immigrant Investor Law. In 1992, Mr. Inman, a
1

2 counsel for the AIS partnerships conveyed this information to AIS whic
3
established its partnerships consistent with the representations made by the Servic
4
· 5 to Mr. Inman and others. (Exh. T, Deposition of Maurice Inman, March 29, 2000

6 at pp.59-63).

7

8

137. The pattern of affirmative misrepresentations continued by the Servic

9 from 1993 until the end of 1997. The Service issued and publicized memoranda,
10
decisions, and other documentation that continued to affirmatively. mislead AIS
II
12 and Investor Plaintiffs into believing that the program elements that were part o

13 the AIS partnerships were approvable as presented. See Exhibits A-H. Meeting
14
15 were held with representatives of the Investor Plaintiffs during this period where,

16 despite the Service's concerns over certain matters, they were reassured that th
17
AIS programs were in compliance with the Immigrant Investor Law and any
18

19 changes would be applied prospectively. In addition, during this period, th
20
Service continued to approve each and every I-526 of each and every Investo
21
22 Plaintiff further misleading the Investors into believing that their investmen

23 program was approvable and would continue to be approved according to plan.

24

25

138. The I-526s, submitted by Investor Plaintiffs, provided for investment

26 m AIS partnerships where fimds would subsequently be put into trouble
27

28

91

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 94 of 115 Page ID #:4060
businesses to preserve jobs. The Investor Plaintiffs made the requisite $500,000
2 investment in the partnerships and the partnerships, in tum, negotiated wit
3
troubled businesses to invest the funds and preserve jobs. Trust arrangements wer
4
5 established with the troubled businesses to insure that the investor's funds wer
6 protected and that the requirements of the Immigrant Investor Law were met.
7
8 Neither the AIS partnerships, nor Investor Plaintiffs individually were informe
9 during this period that these investment programs were not approvable or that th .
10
arrangements established for the partnerships and investments were not i
11
12 compliance with law. In fact, by approving each I-526 and thousands like it, a
13
well as by meeting with AIS representatives and issuing positive memoranda, th
14
15 Service affirmatively misled the Investor Plaintiffs into believing that thei
16 investments were in compliance with the Immigrant Investor Law.
17
139. Notwithstanding their repeated assurances to Investor Plaintiffs,
18
19 through the Plaintiffs' representatives, the Service, as early as August 1996,
20
secretly determined that Investor Plaintiffs' applications did not comply with th
21
22 Immigrant Investor Law. (Exhibit J). Service officials knew that applications wer 23 being approved that contained features that the Service believed were inconsisten
24
25 with the Immigrant Investor Law. (Exhibit J, Exhibit U, Deposition of Alexande
26 Gisser at pp. 9-12, 33-36, Exhibit V, Deposition of Katherine Lorr at pp.17-20).
27 28
92

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 95 of 115 Page ID #:4061

They nevertheless took no action to stop the approvals or to immediately revok

2 the approved I-526 petitions.
3
140. Instead, the Defendant continued to accept Plaintiffs' I-52
4
5 applications, collect fees from Plaintiffs, and continued to approve their I-52

6 applications and their conditional residency. (Exhibit J). Furthermore, Defendan
7
8 allowed Plaintiffs and their families to enter the United States, abandon thei

9 homes abroad, and establish new lives in the United States. Based on th
10
knowledge of the forthcoming policy changes, the Service's subsequent actions
11
12 constituted bad faith and willful misconduct.

13
141. Defendant knew, and its agents acknowledged, Plaintiffs would rely
14
15 upon the Service's consistent and long-standing practice, as expressly stated ·

16 policy memoranda, pronouncements, rulings, and written replies to inquiries,
17
concerning immigrant investor programs.
18

19

142. Defendant knew, and its agents acknowledged, Plaintiffs woul

20
conform the structure of their own investment programs to this long-standin
21

22 practice.

23

143. Defendant knew, and its agents acknowledged, that Plaintiffs relied

24

25 . on Defendant's specific assurances that (1) the investment programs at issu

26 complied with the Immigrant Investor Law and the Pilot Program, and (2) any
27

28

93

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 96 of 115 Page ID #:4062

1 potential changes to the Service's rules or requirements issued pursuant to those 2 laws would be applied prospectively.

144. Defendant knew, and its agents acknowledged, Plaintiffs relied on th
4
5 prior approval oftheir I-526 petitions and their conditional residency.

6

145. In determining whether or if the immigrant investor programs at issu

7

8 were valid means by which to immigrate to the United States, Plaintiffs reasonabl

9 and justifiably relied on the written and oral representations made by the Service,
10
the consistent and long-standing practices of the Service, and specifically th
II
12 approval of I-829 petitions and issuance of visas to immigrant investor

13

··I

participating in similar or identical investment programs.

14

i1

'I
I

15

146. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the representations an

16 assurances of the Defendant when the Defendant granted them conditional lawfu

17

18 permanent residence by individually approving each of the Plaintiffs' I-52

19 petitions, which contained their fully disclosed investments.
20
147. Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the Defendant's specifi
21
22 promises, representations, and assurances to AIS and the investors that AIS

23 investment programs complied with the Immigrant Investor Law and accordingly
24
25 the Plaintiffs' I-526 petitions and their conditional residency would be approved.

26

27

28

94

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 97 of 115 Page ID #:4063

In fact, each and every I-526 petition and adjustment of status or immigrant visa i

2 this case was approved by Defendant.
3
148. Plaintiffs also reasonably and justifiably relied on the Defendant's
4
5 specific promises, representations, and assurances to AIS and the investors that any

6 changes in the Immigrant Investor Law would be prospective .only throu
7
8 participatory rule making.

9

149. As a result of their reasonable and justifiable reliance on th

10
consistent and long-standing position cif the Defendant, Plaintiffs sold their homes,
II

12 uprooted their families, dramatically changed their lives, spent substantial sums o

13
money, and moved their families thousands of miles away from their hom
14
15 countries.

16

150. Once Investor Plaintiffs had moved to the United States, resettle

17
their families and dramatically changed their lives, the Defendant put into motio
18

19 process that prevented the Investor Plaintiffs from successfully removing the·

20
conditional residency status and becoming lawful permanent resident.
21

22

151. The Defendant's conduct post-October, 1997 made it impossible fo

23 Plaintiffs to continue investing partnership assets in businesses. Despite issuing a
24
25 October, 1997 memorandum (Exhibit H) that confirmed the propriety of the

26 Plaintiffs' investments, the Defendant placed Investor Plaintiffs' I-829 application
27
28

95

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 98 of 115 Page ID #:4064

I on hold until they could issue the Izumii decisions that would permanently bru

2 Plaintiffs from receiving their lawful permanent resident status. The uncertainty
3
created by Defendant's illegal actions in first placing a hold on all applications and
4
5 thereafter issuing opinions in June/July 1998 in Matter of Izumii and its progeny

6 (that asserted that Plaintiffs' investments could never be valid) forced Plaintiffs'
7
8 partnerships, as a matter of their fiducimy responsibility, to withhold assets and

9 stop making payments to underlying businesses in order to protect the assets of the
10
partnership. Although the full amount of qualifYing funds were placed in the AIS
II
12 partnerships, and jobs were initially preserved when the investments were firs

13

·-1

made upon the approval of the I-526 applications, the partnerships could not,

r1

14

15 consistent with their fiduciary responsibilities, continue to invest funds in the

16 underlying businesses given the Defendant's affirmative misconduct. The
17
18 Defendant's stay and its actions pre- and post-Izumii demonstrated that no set o

19 circumstances and no continued investment would have qualified Plaintiffs for the
20
approval of their I-829 applications. Thus the Defendant's illegal actions in
21
22 issuing stavs and aoolving the Matter of Izumii decisions actuallv forced the

23 Plaintiffs (and putative class members) into a position of non-compliance.

24

25

152. The effects of the Defendant's illegal actions continue. until this day.

26 Almost 7 years have passed since the issuance of Matter ofIzumii. Plaintiffs were
27

28

96

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 99 of 115 Page ID #:4065

only required under law to maintain their investments for a period of two years.

2 Although Plaintiffs have maintained their full investment in their partnerships,
3
virtually all of the businesses that the partnerships invested in are no longer i
4
5 business due to the passage of time. In addition, Investor Plaintiffs were required t

6 expend funds to preserve existing assets through litigation or otherwise. Th
7
8 investment funds, therefore, have been eroded through litigation and administrative

9 costs.
10
153. The Defendant should therefore be estopped from denying Plaintiffs'
11
12 I-829 applications under INA §§216(c)(l)(A) and (d)(l), 8 U.S.C.

13
§§1186b(c)(l)(A) and (d)(1) as the failure to comply with the investment and job
14
15 preservation requirements is solely due to the Defendant's affirmativ

16 misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that first induced Plaintiffs to invest and thereafte
17
determined the investment was illegal.
18

19

Third Cause of Action: Violation of Administrative Procedure Act

20

(Rule Making)

21

154. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

22
length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.
23

24.

155. The Service promulgated its new requirements, which are substantiv

25
rules of general applicability, without complying with the APA's rule makin
26
27 procedures. When applied retroactively, these new rules amend the prior Service's

28

97

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 100 of 115 Page ID #:4066

rules, procedures, policies, practices, and individual adjudications of Plaintiffs' I

· 2 526 petitions, which all had the force oflaw.
3
156. The APA requires notice of the proposed rulemaking be published ·
4
5 the Federal Register and the agency provide notice and opportunity for commen

6 by interested persons. Further, such rules may only be applied prospectively unde
7
8 the APA. Defendant, in violation of the APA, is applying its new rules

9 retroactively. The retroactive application of these new rules, without notice an
10
comment, has a substantial and direct deleterious effect on Plaintiffs.
11

12

Fourth Cause of Action: Abuse of Discretion

13
157. ·Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

j

14

15 length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.

16

158. The Service's stated decision to adjudicate the Investor Plaintiffs' I

17
18 829 petitions using investment and investor qualification standards different th

19 those used by the Service to adjudicate the Investor Plaintiffs' I-526 petitions, eve
20
though both petitions are based on identical facts, is arbitrary, capricious, and
21
22 abuse of discretion.

23

159. The Service's stated decision to apply its new rules andrequirements

24

25 retroactively, and with full knowledge of the deleterious impact this application

26 would have on the Plaintiffs, is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
27

28

98

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 101 of 115 Page ID #:4067

160. The Service's decision to abruptly and radically depart from its ow

2 pnor publicly announced and published rules, requirements, and standards
3
governing the Immigrant Investor Law without the opportunity of prior notice an
4
5 comment is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

6

161. Defendant's failure to provide proper evidence of status to immigran

7

8 investors and their dependants with pending I-829s such as an I-551 card or

9 stamp in their passport demonstrating conditional residence arid failure to provid
10
proof that they are employment authorized are also in violation of law and are
ll
12 likewise arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.

l3

162. Plaintiffs have reasonably relied on the Service's pnor rules

14

15 requirements, pronouncements, statements, and adjudications relating to th

16 Immigrant Investor Law, and upon the Service's approval of the I~526 petition

17

I

18 and the Department of State's issuance of visas in specific cases involv:ing th

I

19 Investor Plaintiffs where the investment programs contained one or more of th

20
elements at issue.
21

22

163. Even if the rules are characterized as interpretation, the Defendant ha

23 still abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors enunciated ·
24
25 Montgomery Wardv. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322, 1333 (9th Cir. 1982), when it applies it

26

27

28

99

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 102 of 115 Page ID #:4068

1 radically different rules and policies to the adjudication of the Plaintiffs' I-82

2 petitions.
3
164. Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be irreparably harmed by th
4
5 retroactive application of the new rules and requirements.

6

Fifth Cause of Action: Action Exceeding Statutory Authority

7

8

165. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

9 length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.
10
166. Defendant's abrupt and radical revision of the regulatory schem
11
12 governing the Immigrant Investor Law and the Pilot Program exceeded its

13
statutory jurisdiction and authority, under the former INA 216A, 8 U.S.C. §1186b
14
, 5 in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).

16

167. Under INA §§216(c)(1)(A) and (d)(1), 8 U.S.C. §§1186b(c)(l)(A) an

17
18 ( d)(1) as they existed at all relevant times to Plaintiffs' complaint, the Service was

!9 strictly limited to what it could review in the context of removing the condition o
20
a resident's conditional residency. The INA specifically limited the review, and th
21
22 applicant was only required to present, evidence that: (a) a commercial enterpris

23 was established; (b) that the investor had invested or was actively in the process o
24
25 investing the requisite capital; and (c) that the investor sustained these action

26 during the period of conditional residency. Even under the current statutory
27

28 .

100

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 103 of 115 Page ID #:4069

regime the I-526 constitutes the Service's approval of the investor's business plan.
1

2 The I-829 process does not permit are-adjudication of the business plan but rathe

3
a determination that the approved plan has been complied with by the investor.
4

5

168. In this case, the Service approved each investor's business plan,

6. allowed each investor to invest the requisite amount of funds in a progra
7
8 acknowledged and approved by the Defendant and allowed the investor to mainta·

9 the investment since 1998 by taking no action to revoke the I-526 approval.
10
Notwithstanding the approval, the Defendant re-adjudicated the petitions ab initi
11
12 and used new standards that were retroactively applied. The re-adjudication of th

13
petitions violated INA §216A.
14

15

169. Defendant has also sought to unlawfully adjudicate Plaintiffs' I-82

16 petitions to remove conditions from their residency in the context of determinin
17
their eligibility for naturalization, thus violating the scope of statutory authority
18

19 permitted by 8 U.S.C. §§ 1422-1430.

20
Sixth Cause of Action: Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
21

22

170. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

23 length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.

24

25

171. Defendant's abrupt and radical revision of the regulatory schem

26 governing the Immigrant Investor Law and the Pilot Program, and its retroactiv
27

28

101

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 104 of 115 Page ID #:4070

application of the new rules and requirements, violate Plaintiffs' rights to du

2 process under the Constitution of the United States.
3
172. Defendant violated Plaintiffs' due process rights by failing to folio
4
5 its own regulations and by allowing the AAO, which is not an independent an

6 impartial adjudicative body, to adjudicate the "precedent" cases.

7

8

173. Defendant violated Plaintiffs' due process rights by engaging in unfai

9 practices and policies by systematically denying the §1421(c) subclass members'
10
applications for naturalization as a result of a misreading of the Immigration an
11
12 Nationality Act (INA) in violation of due process and equal protection. Se

13
McNary v. Hatiiln Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991) (holding inter alia that
14
15 district court has jurisdiction to review due process challenges to systemati

16 denials by the former INS, now USC IS).

17
Seventh Cause of Action:
18
Judicial Review Over Naturalization Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)
19

20

174. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference as if set forth in full and a

21 length herein paragraphs 1 through 126 of this Complaint.
22
175. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c), "[a] person whose application fo
23
24 naturalization under this subchapter is denied, after a hearing before an

25
immigration officer under section 1447(a) of this title, may seek review of sue
26
21 denial before the United States district court for the district in which such perso

28

102

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 105 of 115 Page ID #:4071

resides . . . .Such review shall be de novo, and the court shall make its ow
1

2 findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall, at the request of the petitioner,

3
conduct a hearing de novo on the application." I d.
4

5

176. Plaintiffs, subclass representatives, or subclass members, and thei

6 family members, listed within Exhibit W, are the proposed §1421(c) subclass wh
7
8 have applied for naturalization and have been denied, across-the-board, based o

9 their status as EB-5 conditional permanent residents. All forty-six (46) subclas
10
members have filed N-336 Requests for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalizatio
11
12 Proceedings and all, save two, have attended their respective N-336 hearings. T

13
date, twenty-three (23) subclass members have received final determination Jetter
14
15 from the Service affirming the denial of their naturalization applications. AI

16 proposed subclass representatives reside in Central District of California and are
17
filing this action for judicial review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) within 120 days
18

19 of receiving the fmal determination denying their applications for naturalization as

20
required by 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(b).
21

22

177. All proposed subclass members have met the statutory requirement

23 for United States citizenship, including demonstrating good moral character
24
25 allegiance to the United States, passing the civic and English language tests, a

26 well as having satisfied the physical presence and all other requirements fo
27

28

103

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 106 of 115 Page ID #:4072

1 naturalization, including eligibility based on their conditional residency statu

2 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(e). Despite their statutory eligibility fo
3
naturalization, all subclass members have been issued boilerplate denial decisions
4
5 by USCIS reciting that each person, or his or her family-member-principa

6 investor, failed to meet the requirements of the EB-5 investment program, and thu ·
7
8 are not eligible to naturalize because they have not successfully removed th

9 conditions from their residency. Therefore, the Service has improperly adjudicate
10
Plaintiffs' petitions to remove conditions on their permanent residency (form I
11

12 829) in the context of their respective naturalization proceedings.
13
178. Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court exercise its jurisdictio
14
15 under 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) to review de novo the denial of Plaintiffs' application

16 for naturalization on a representative basis, with respect to their eligibility fo
17
naturalization, and to make a legal conclusion that the Plaintiffs, named subclas
18

19 · representatives, and subclass members are not ineligible for naturalization solei
20
based on their status as EB-5 conditional residents nor based upon an imprope
21
22 adjudication of their I-829 petitions to remove conditions on their residency.

23

179. In the alternative, if this Court determines that proceeding on

24

25 representative basis is not the best method for adjudicating Plaintiffs' cause o

26

27

28

104

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 107 of 115 Page ID #:4073

action under § 1421 (c), Plaintiffs hereby request separate, individualized hearings

2 to review the denial of their applications for naturalization.

3
VI. IRREPARABLE HARM TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
4

5

180. Defendant's unlawful actions and affirmative misconduct has cause

6 Plaintiffs substantial and irreparable hann as set forth supra in paragraphs 42-46
·7
8 and paragraph 57.

9

VII. ATTORNEYS' FEES

10
181. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions, Plaintiffs wer
11

12 required to hire counsel and pay counsel reasonable attorney's fees, which may b

13
recovered along with costs and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
14

15

VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter judgment ·

17

their behalf and enter the following:
18

19

a. an order directing Defendant not to consider the Plaintiffs' presence·

20
the United States as unlawful during the period of time between the denial ofthei
21

22 I-829 petition and the disposition ofthis litigation;

23

b. an order declaring the AIS investment program elements an

24

25 structure, in existence prior to December 19, 1997, as used by and offered to the

26

27

28

105

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 108 of 115 Page ID #:4074

Plaintiffs, satisfies the requirements of the Immigrant Investor Law and it

2 regulations;
3
c. an order directing Defendant and its agents immediately to reinstat
4
5 approvals concerning any I-526 petitions filed by Plaintiffs that have been revoked;

6

d. an order directing Defendant and its agents to immediately issue al

7

8 necessary and appropriate documentation to the Investor Plaintiffs and thei

9 dependents to evidence continuing lawful resident status in the United States an

10
the rightto work and to freely enter the United States as lawful residents;
II

12

f. an order directing Defendant and its agents, in a prompt and timely

13
manner, to approve each and every I-829 petition to remove conditional statu
14
15 already filed by Investor Plaintiffs;

16

g. an order declaring invalid and ordering the Defendant to withdraw an

17

set aside the purported "precedent" decisions of the AAO;
18

19

h. an order declaring the practices of Defendant challenged herein as

20
violating the Plaintiffs' right to due process and equal protection under th
21

22 Constitution of the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act, the INA an

23 federal regulations, and general principles of estoppel;

24

25

I.

an order declaring that the practices of the Defendant constitute a

26 improper retroactive application of the law, which has harmed all Plaintiffs;
27

28

106

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 109 of 115 Page ID #:4075

J.

an order declaring any and all new rules and requirements regardin

2 the EB-5 investor visa program be promulgated only in accordance with th
3
Administrative Procedure Act and that such new rules and requirements may only
4
5 be applied prospectively to I-526 petitions filed after the effective date of the ne

6 rules and requirements;

7

8

k. an order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) granting judicial revie

9 before this Court for all Plaintiffs, class and subclass members within the § 1421(c
10
subclass and a legal conclusion that a person's status as a conditional permanen
11
12 resident is not a bar to approval of their naturalization (N-400) application;

l3
1. an injunction enjoining the Defendant from applying any of th
14
15 criteria announced in the General Counsel Memorandum of December 19, 1997 o

16 in Matter of Izumii and the other "precedent" decisions following Izumii t
17
18 Plaintiffs' cases, including their I-829, I-526, and I-485 applications;

19

m. an injunction enjoining the Defendant from taking any action to

20
deport, remove or deem inadmissible any Investor Plaintiffs from the United State
21

22 pending a final determination in this case;

23

n. an injunction enjoining the Defendant from taking any action to

24

25 deprive the Investor Plaintiffs of their right to be employed in the United States

26 during the pendency of this case;
27

28

107

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 110 of 115 Page ID #:4076

o. a mandatory injunction requiring the approval of Plaintiffs' I-82

2 applications absent fraud;
3
p. an injunction ellJommg the Defendant from usmg the EB-5
4
5 conditional residency status of any plaintiff, class or subclass member to den

6
naturalization;

7

8

q. an order granting a mandatory injunction prohibiting Defendant fro

9 using Plaintiffs' conditional resident status or any matters related to the"
10
conditional resident status as a basis for denial of their naturalization applications;
11

12

r. an order awarding Plaintiffs their attorney's fees and costs; and

13
s. an order granting such other relief as the Court may deem just,
14
15 equitable and proper.

16

17
Dated: May 11, 2010
18

Respectfully submitted,

19

20

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. (State ar No.: 71563

KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER &

21

TETZELI, P.A.

22

2650 S.W. 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor

Miami, Florida 33133

23

Tel. (305) 444-0060/Fax. (305) 444-3503

24

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS .

25

26

27

28

108

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 111 of 115 Page ID #:4077

2

3

4
//Pages 110-113//
5

6

I/Intentionally Left Blank/I

.7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

109

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 112 of 115 Page ID #:4078

2

3
//Pages 110-113 //
4

5

//Intentionally Left Blank//

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

110

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 113 of 115 Page ID #:4079

2

3
//Pages 110-113 //

4

5

//Intentionally Left Blank/I

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

28

111

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 114 of 115 Page ID #:4080
//Pages 110-113 // //Intentionally Left Blank//
112

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 289 Filed 05/11/10 Page 115 of 115 Page ID #:4081
113

 
 Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 383 Filed 02/13E/-13FIPLaEgDe 10o2f/513P/a2ge01ID3#:7180

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

____________________________________________________________

:

4 CHANG, Wen Wan, et al.,

:

5

Plaintiffs,

: :

CGaHsKe N(AoJ.:WCxV)199-10518-

:

6

:

7

v.

: PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING : FINAL APPROVAL OF

: SETTLEMENT

8

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9

: :

Defendant.
10

: :

NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

:

11

12
This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is any
13
14 cause by this Court to deny approval of the settlement reached by the parties, as

15 set forth in the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) submitted to this Court in
16
final form on October 5, 2012, see Doc. 375 and preliminarily approved
17

18 thereafter, see Doc. 376. The Court, after review of the entire record, and after

19
considering all papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the
20
21 Agreement, including the fairness hearing held on January 14, 2013, has

22 determined that the settlement should be APPROVED.

23

24

In determining that the Agreement reached by the parties is fundamentally

25 fair, adequate, and reasonable to the class, the Court has considered a number of
26
27 1 The instant case has been consolidated with Ahn v. United States, Case No.: CV 01-07382-GHK(AJWx).
28

1

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 383 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:7181

factors: the strength of the plaintiffs’ case; the risk, expense, complexity, and
1

2 likely duration of further litigation; the risk of maintaining class action status
3
throughout the trial; the terms of the settlement for plaintiffs; the extent of
4
5 discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views

6
of counsel; the presence of a governmental participant; and the reaction of the
7
8 class members to the proposed settlement.

9

Here, a balancing of these factors counsels strongly in favor of settlement

10
approval. The primary consideration counseling in favor of approval of this
11

12 settlement is that it provides for a favorable resolution of this protracted litigation

13
for the members of the class. So long as the class members provide the
14
15 government with standard biometric information, and unless the government

16 determines by clear and convincing evidence that a petitioner made a willful
17
material misrepresentation on his or her Form I-829, in the evidence supporting
18

19 his or her Form I-829, or in the evidence establishing the initial source of funds;

20
or finds that the investment was knowingly made solely as a means of evading the
21
22 immigration laws of the United States, the government must approve the I-829

23 petition and grant the class member unconditional lawful permanent resident
24
25 status. Moreover, under the terms of the Agreement, class members are given the

26 opportunity to rebut a finding that they made a material misrepresentation or that
27
their investment was made to evade the immigration laws. And even where a
28

2

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 383 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:7182
class member fails to rebut such a finding before the United States Citizenship
1
2 and Immigration Services, the class member is entitled to administrative review
3
of that determination in removal proceedings, and ultimately before the federal
4
5 courts on petition for review.
6
While the terms of the Agreement on their face are fundamentally fair and
7
8 strongly counsel in favor of approval, each of the other factors also suggests that
9 the settlement should be approved. Although this litigation has been ongoing for
10
over fifteen years, extensive discovery matters remained in dispute prior to the
11
12 initiation of settlement discussions. See Doc. 343 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 13 Discovery); Doc. 348 (Defendant’s Supplemental Brief [on Plaintiffs’ Motion to
14
15 Compel Discovery]); Doc. (Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum [on Plaintiffs’
16 Motion to Compel Discovery]). Continued litigation in this case would almost
17
certainly involve continued costly and protracted disputes over these discovery
18
19 matters, subsequent dispositive motions, and potentially a trial. Meanwhile, the
20
class members would face continued uncertainty with respect to their prospects of
21
22 obtaining unconditional lawful permanent resident status, and for many, their
23 ability to continue their residence in United States after lawfully residing here in
24
25 conditional resident status for over a decade. All class members have been has
26 apprised of the settlement terms, and none have objected. Experienced counsel for
27
both parties believe the settlement is fair and in the best interests of both parties.
28
3

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 383 Filed 02/13/13 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:7183

One of the parties is a governmental entity – the United States of America – a fact
1

2 which further counsels in favor of settlement approval.
3
WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
4
5 THAT:

6
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, and all
7
8 actions within this litigation and over the parties to the Agreement, including all

9 members of the class on the one hand, and defendant the United States of
10
America on the other.
11

12

2. The Court hereby finally APPROVES and CONFIRMS the settlement set

13
forth in the Agreement and finds that said settlement is, in all respects, fair,
14
15 reasonable, and adequate to the class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

16 Civil Procedure.
17
3. The notice given to the class members set forth in the Agreement, see Doc.
18

19 375-2, provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters

20
set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement, to
21
22 all persons entitled to such notice.

23

4. Pursuant to the Agreement, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to review any

24

25 pattern or practice violation by Defendant of Plaintiffs’ rights under the

26 Agreement.
27

28

4

Case 2:99-cv-10518-GHK-AJW Document 383 Filed 02/13/13 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:7184

5. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiffs shall within five (5) days of this
1

2 Order, lodge with the Court their Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I-829
3
Petitions, Doc. 375-1.
4

5

6

2/13

DATED: January __, 2013

7

8

9

10

________________________________________ Hon. George H. King Chief, United States District Judge

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 
 01-56266; 01-56379
In the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit

,f 'a,o." I

Wen-Wan CHANG, et. al. Appellants
V,
United States of America Appellee

Appeal

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx)

PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS'

INITIAL BRIEF

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli PA 2650 SW 27 th Avenue, 2 nd floor Miami, FL 33133 Tel: 305.444.0060; Fax. 305.444.3503

Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. (State Van Der Hout, & Brigagliano 180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel. (415) 981-3000; Fax. (415)

Bar No.: 981-3003

80778)

CORPORATEDISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, the

Plaintiffs/Appellants assert that there are no nongovernmental corporate parties to

this appeal. In addition, the Partnershi p Plaintiffs/Appellants

have neither parent

corporations nor a publicly held company with an ownership share of more than ten percent.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

.............................................................................

vi

JURISDICTIONAL

STATEMENT

..................................................................

x

ISSUES PRESENTED

FOR REVIEW .............................................................

xi

STATEMENT

OF THE CASE ..........................................................................

1

STATEMENT

OF THE FACTS .............................................

".................... ,...... 7

A.

The Immigrant Investor Law ....................................................................

7

1.

First Step: Initial Petition To Determine Eligibility (I-526) .......... 7

a.

Reconsideration

of the 1-526 petition ...................................

9

2.

Second Step: Petition To Remove Conditions (I-829) ................... 9

B.

The Individual Immigrant Investor Plaintiffs .........................................

11

C.

The Partnerships (i.e. The Qualifying Investments) ...............................

13

D.

The Defendant Issues "Precedent Decisions" Rather Than Proceed By

Promised Notice And Comment Rulemaking ........................................

14

E.

The Precedent Decisions Radically Changed The INS' Criteria For

Approving Investments ...........................................................................

16

F.

Procedural History ................................................................

: ............ ; .... 17

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

...............................................................

20

ARGUMENT .................................

... ........... .....................................................

23

I.

ALL PLAINTIFFS HAVE RIPE AND JUSTICIABLE

CLAIMS ........ 23

A.

Standard Of Review .....................................................................

23

i

B°

All Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Meet The Criteria For

Ripeness ........................................................................................

23

,

All Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Are Ripe Because

They All Face A Realistic Danger Of Sustaining A

Direct Injury. ......................................................................

24

a,

The district court's reliance on Catholic Social

Services is misplaced ...............................................

26

2,

All Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Are Ripe Because

The DisPuted Issues Are Primarily Legal ...................... .... 29

.

All Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Are Ripe Because

They Will Suffer Hardship If The Court Declines To

Consider The Issue ............................................................

29

II. THE PLAINTIFFS'

CLASS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED ...................... 30

A.

Standard Of Review _.....................................................................

30

B,

The District Court Abused Its Discretion In Denying

Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification Where Its Ripeness

Ruling Was In Error .....................................................................

30

III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING

THE

PLAINTIFFS'

CLAIM OF ESTOPPEL FOR FAILURE TO

DEMONSTRATE

AFFIRMATIVE

MISCONDUCT

...........................

32

A.

Standard Of Review i....................................................................

32

B°

The Plaintiffs Have Properly Asserted A Prima Facie Claim

for Estoppel ............... ; ...................................................................

33

,

The Plaintiffs' Complaint Sufficiently Alleges

Misconduct To Overcome A Motion For Judgment On

The Pleadings Where No Discovery Was Permitted ......... 34

2.

The INS Engaged In Affimlative Misconduct ................... 35

.

The Impending Deportation Of The Plaintiffs Or Any

Other Serious Injustice That Will Result If The

Defendant Is Not Estopped Outweighs Any Potential

Damage To The Public Interest .........................................

38

°

The INS Was Fully Aware Of The Structure Of The

Plaintiffs' Investments When They Were First

Approved And Granted Residency ....................................

40

,

The Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Rely On Their

Approved 1-526 Petitions: ...... i ......................................

...... 41

.

The Plaintiffs Were Unaware That Their Investments

Did Not Comply With The immigrant Investor Law ........ 42

71

The Plaintiffs Actually Relied On Their Approved•

1-526 Petitions To Their Detriment ....................................

43

°

R.L. Investment Is Not Applicable To The Plaintiffs'

Estoppel Clai m ...................................................................

44

IV. THE DEFENDANT

VIOLATED THE APA'S NOTICE AND

COMMENT tUf;QUIREMENT

BY PROMULGATING

THE

PRECEDENT

DECISIONS

AND APPLYING THEM TO RE-

ADJUDICATE

THE PLAINTIFFS'

1-829 PETITIONS ....................... 45

A°

Notice And Comment Is Required Where Rules Announced

In Adjudications Unsettle Legitimate Reliance Interests ............. 45

°

The Criteria Announced In The Precedent Decisions

Depart Radically From The Agency's Previous

Application Of The hnmigrant Investor Law To The

Plaintiffs' 1-526 Petitions ........ . .............. . ...........................

47

o

The Immigrant Investor's 1-526 Approvals Give Rise

To A Settled Interest In The Application Of The Prior

Criteria ................................................................................

47

°

The New Criteria Would Subject The Immigrant

Investors To Substantial Harm ...........................................

48

iii

°

The Precedent Decisions Are Broad And General In

Scope And Prospective In Application ..............................

49

B,

Plaintiffs' APA Claims Are Not Inconsistent With Guernsey,

Chief Probation Officers, And R.L. h_vestment ...........................

51

C,

The Criteria Announced In The Precedent Decisions And

Their Application To The Plaintiffs Amend The Statute And

Regulations ...................................................................................

54

The INS Has Legislatively Amended The Regulations

And Created New Requirements For Investments To

Qualify Under The Law .....................................................

55

.

The INS Has Amended The Narrow Scope Of Inquiry

That Is To Be Undertaken In The Adjudication Of An

1-829 Petition ......................................................................

57

D°

The INS Is Required To Engage In Rulemaking When It

Contravenes A Long Standing Practice Or Policy ....................... 60

V.

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING INJUNCTIVE

AND DECLARATORY

REILEF TO THE SIX DISMISSED

NAMED PLAINTFFS BASED ON THEIR RETROACTIVITY

CLAIMS .................................................................................................

62

CONCLUSION

..........................................................................................

....... 63

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ............................................................

65

CERTIFICATE

OF COMPLIANCE

................................................................

66

ADDENDUM ....................................................................................................

68

8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), INS § 203(b)(5) ............................................................

68

8 U.S.C. § 1186b, INA § 216A ................ ".........................................................

70

8 C.F.R. § 204.6 ........................................

.........................................................

76

iv

8 C.F.R. § 216.6 ................................................................................................

88

PROOF OF SEi_VI CE

._.:.-__:._..'.._._'i_--i;'._-,-..".-L_...-,-...:-_.............i.;'.".i._...._il.i-_)._.......... ....... 94

.-,. ....

- -(] _

t

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1968) ...... .v-.. ...........................

24

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 _(1986) ...............................................

35

Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 ('1945) ..............................................................

25

Catholic Social Services v. Reno, 509 U.S. 43 (1993) .................. :.......... 26, 27-28

NLRB v. BellAerospace,

416 U.S. 267 (1974).. .................................................

50

General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,

157 (1982) ................................

.._: .......................................................................

31

Guernsey v. Shalala, 514 U.S. 87 .(1995) .................................................

51-52, 55

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agriculture Products

568 (1985) ....................................

:.....................

.
United States v. Utah Construction

and Mining,

Company,

473 U.S.

..24, 29-30

384 U.S. 394 (1966) .............. 54

CouRT O:F' APPEALS

Alaska Professional Hunters Ass'n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C.Cir. 1999) ........................ . ................................................................

22, 60-62

Burget v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661 (9 th Cir.

2000)

"

33

Chief Probation Officer v. Shalala, 118 F.3d ] 327 (9 th Cir. 1997) ............... 51-53

City of Auburn v. Qwest CoJporation, ...................

260 F.3d 1160 (9 th Cir. 2001) ... 20, 23-24, 26, 29

Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 108.1 (9 rl' Cir. -1997) .....................................

42, 44, 48

vi

Ford Motor Co. v. FTC, 673 F:2d 1008 (9th Cir.1981) ..........................

21-22, 46

Freedom To Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9 th Cir. 1994) ......... 20, 23, 27-29

George v. Camacho, 119 F.3d 1393 (9 'h Cir. 1997)(en banc)

63

Johnson v. Willford, 682 F.2d 868 (9 th Cir. 1982) ....................... 21, 36, 39-44, 48

Jordan v. Los Angeles County, 669 F.2d 1311 (9 th Cir. 1982),

vacated on other grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982) .................................................

31

Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, 131 F.3d 807 (9 th Cir. 1997) ....................... "....... ...................................................................

30-31

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F:3d 668 (9 th Cir. 2001) ....................................

33

Maceren v. District Director, INS, 509 F.2d 934 (9 th Cir. 1975) ................. 39, 49

McDonald v. Watt, 653 F.2d i035 (5 th Cir. 1981) ..............................................

43

Metabolife v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832 (9 th Cir. 2001) .....................................

34-35

Microcomputer

Technology v.Riley, 139 F.3d 1044 (5 th Cir. 1998) .................. 43

Montgomery Wardv. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9 th Cir. 1982) ....................... 6, 18, 62

NLRB v. GuyAtkinson,

195 F.2d i41 (9 th Cir. 1952) ...................................

47, 63

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 1-547 v.

NLRB, 842 F.2d 1141 (9 th cirl 1988) ..................................................................

47

Paffv. HUD, 88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996) ...........................................

21, 45-46, 61

Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199 (9tti Cir.1980) ..................... 22, 39, 43, 46-47, 49, 56

Ruangswang v. INS, 591 F.2d 39, 44 (9th Cir.1978) ..............................

22, 46, 56

R.L .Investment v. INS, 278 F.:3d 874 (9 th Cir. 2001), adopting, F.Supp.2d 1014 (D. Haw. 2000) .........................................................

86 44-45, 52-54

vii

Safir v. Gibson, 432 F.2d 137,(2 ''d Cir. 1970) .....................................................

54

Shell Off_hore Inc. v. Babbitt; 238 F.3d 622 (5 _hCir. 2001) .............. 22, 51, 60-62

Sun II Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 13251(9 tl_Cir. 1975) ..............................

_............ 21, 38

Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights" Commission, 220 F.3d 1134

(9 th Cir. 2000)(en banc) ............... i ....... •.....................................

,.....................

23-24

United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406 (9 _hCir. 1975) .............. 21, 34, 36-40, 43

Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, !047 (9 th Cir. 1998) ...................................

31-32

Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9 th Cir. 1989)(en banc) 21, 33-37, 40-42, 44, 48

Williamson v. General Dynamic Corp., 208 F.3d 1144 (9 th Cir. 2000) ............. 33

Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (9 th Cir. 1994) ......................... ,.... _................................................................

22, 46

Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734 (9 th Cir. 2001) ............................

33

DISTRICT COURT

Gestuvo v. District Director, ...................................................

INS, 337 F.Supp. 11093 (C.D.Cal '...: ...............................................

1971) 21, 38-41, 44, 63

ADMINISTRATIVE

MATERIALS

Matter of Soffici, Int. Dec. No. 3359, 22 1 & N Dec. 158

(Exam. Comm. 1998)

3

Matter oflzumii, Int. Dec. No. 3360, 22 I & N Dec. 169 (Exam. Comm. 1998) ........... _........................................................

3, 44, 48, 51-52

Matter of Hsuing, Int. Dec. No. 3361, 22 [ & N Dec. 201

(Exam. Comm. 1998) ........ ....:...:.:: .......................................................................

3

viii

Matter of rio, Int. Dec. No. 3362, 22 I&N Dec. 206

(Exam. Comm. 1998) ............ ,...............................................................................

3

STATUTES

8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), INA § 203(b)(5) .............................................

1, 7-9, 56-57

8 U.S.C. § 1186b, INA § 216A ........... :.......................................

.1,4, 9-11, 26, 59

28 U.S.C. § 1291 ............................

: ............... .......................................................

x

28 U.S.C.§ 1331 ...................................................................................................

.x

28 U.S.C. § 1346 ................... :_..._..... i .....................................................................

x

28 U.S.C. § 2201 ......................... '..........................................................................

x

REGULATIONS 8 C.F.R. § 204.6 ................... :,:.... .................................

1-2, 7-8, 11, 41,52, 54-59

8 C.F.R. § 216.6 ....................................................................

1,4,7, 11,52,54,59

RULES AND OTHER MATERIAL

56 Fed Reg. 60897 (November 29, 1991) .............................................................

8

59 Fed Reg. 26587 (May 23, 1994) ....................................................................

10

59 Fed Reg. 1317 (January 10, 1994) .................................................................

10:

60 Fed. Reg. 29771 (June 6, !795) .........................................................

: ..... 14, 50

ix

JURISDICTIONAL

STATEMENT

The district court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action is predicated

on28U.S.C.§

1331, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and28U.S.C.§

1346. This Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 129 i. The district court's order[DE 58] granting in part and denying in part tile

Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and for judgment on the pleadings was entered on May 3, 2001. Judgment was entered on May 7, 2001. [DE 59]. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendant flied cross motions to reconsider this judgment [DE 61, 63]. Both of these motions were denied in orders entered on

June 14, 2001 [DE 70, 71]. The Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on July 2, 2001. [DE 72]. The
Defendant filed a cross notice of appeal on July 24, 2001. [DE 73]. The Plaintiffs' notice of appeal is timely pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(1)(B).

ISSUES PRESENTED

FOR REVIEW

Justiciability

Io

Whether the district court erred in dismissing six of the seven named

putative class representative's

claims for lack of ripeness when Defendant's

challenged conduct can be firmly predicted to operate to all of the Plaintiffs'

disadvantage.

lI.

Whether the district court I abused its discretion in not certifying a class

". !
action.

_. ,Merits of Claims III. Whether the Plaintiffs properly alleged estoppel when it was affirmative

misconduct for the Defendant to:. (a) approve the individual Plaintiffs' "non-

approvable"

immigrant petitions and admit them to this country; (b)

misinform the Plaintiffs that changes to the immigrant investor law would be

made in a prospective manner through notice and comment rule making; and.

(c) conceal from the Plaintiffs the Defendant's true intent to retroactively

apply the new criteria to the Plaintiffs' previously approved investments.

J

:

IV. Whether the Plaintiffs properly alleged that the Defendant violated the

Administrative

Procedures Act's (APA) notice and comment requirement by

promulgating

new criteria
;.

in "precedent

decisions"

and subsequently

xi

applying this new criteria to the Plaintiffs who had already received official

agency approval of their eligibility to become lawful permanent residents.

go

Whether the district court erred in denying injunctive and declaratory relief

to the six dismissed Plaintiffs and the putative •class because of the

Defendant's retroactive application of the law.

xii

t
STATEMENT

OF THE CASE

The Plaintiffs

in this action are challenging

the Immigration

and

Naturalization

Service's (INS) administration

of the "hnmigrant Investor Law. ''l

With this law, Congress created a process for foreign nationals to obtain lawful

permanent residence by making a qualifying investment with the goal of creating or preserving at least ten jobs for United States' workers.

The Plaintiffs include seven named individual immigrant investors and their families seeking to represent a class of investors who are all seeking to become

lawful permanent residents by investing substantial sums of money in one of

twenty-eight
83].

(28) similarly structured limited partnerships.

[ER 7-11, 61; ¶¶11-19,

The immigrant investors individually submitted extensive documentation

fully disclosing the nature and structure of their investment and business plans to the INS in the hopes of qualifying for permanent residence [ER 61;¶ 83]. The INS

reviewed and approved investments and business

each of these submissions

and

!.

plan_ qualified under the Immigrant

determined Investor

that the Law [ER.

61,783]. Based on these approvals, the INS granted each of the investors and their

family members the right to live in the United States as lawful permanent residents;

on a conditional basis [ER 4,1_i3 ]. The INS is supposed to remove the condition

8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(5), 204.6, 216.6.

1186b, INA §§ 203(b)(5), INA § 216A, 8 C.F.R. §§

two years after admitting each of the immigrant investors based on a showing that the investor "in good faith, substantially met the capital investment requirement" of the previously approved investment during this period. 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c)(iii).

Relying on the INS' official determination

that their investment plans

complied with existing law, the investors and their families fundamentally

changed

their lives. [ER 13-14; ¶91 31-32]. They quit their old jobs, sold their businesses

and homes, and pulled their children out of schools in order to move to this country

and integrate themselves into our communities.

[ER 13-14; ¶¶ 31-32][ER 84-85].

They expended substantial economic and personal resources by buying new homes, putting their children in new schools, and pursuing new career paths. [ER 13-14; _!_ 31-32][ER 84-85]• They have adapted to American life over the more than five years that most have lived in this country. [ER 7-10, 13-18; ¶¶ 11-17, 32.];[ER 95]. As such, many of the investors and their young children would find

life in their native countries foreign - this country is now their home. [ER 7-10; 13-14, 7¶ 11-17, 31].

Seven years of consistent application and agency assurances concerning the natm'e and structure of the Plaintiffs' investments were brushed aside when the

INS radically and abruptly altered its criteria for approving qualifying investment and business plans. [ER 63_70; ¶ 104]. This new criteria was not announced in

prospective notice and comment rule making - despite assurances to the contrary

and with full knowledge of the potential deleterious impact to the investors and their businesses. [ER 57; ¶ 88].2 Rather the agency circumvented this participatory process and announced its new rules of general application in a series of"precedent decisions. ''3 [ER 57-63; ¶¶ 88-103].
Now, more than five years after inviting the investors and their families into this country in order to invest in our economy, the INS has changed its mind. [ER 59, 63-70; _I94, 104-104]. Under the INS' present view of the law, the Plaintiffs' investments no longer allow them to become permanent residents - and in fact in their opinion, their investments should never have been approved.
_.:.

2 As then INS General Counsel Paul Virtue stated:

In 1996, 1 believed that the appropriate course for resolving lingering

questions about this arrangement clearly establish our requirements.

would be to publish a regulation to I advised counsel for AIS that that

was our intended course. AIS and other companies including AEP,

have relied on that deterrfiination to enter into business relationships,

to make substantial commitments,

and to file petitions with 1NS and

applications for visas with the ..Department of State. We have not published a rule or issued a notice to the contrary. [ER 149] (emphasis added); see also [ER 153]("this should all take effect

prospectively.

We are making an: important agency correction in policy, and we

need to do this in a very positive and forward looking manner and not take a

position that will unnecessarily hurt individuals who have relied on the prior decisions.") 3 Matter of Soffici, Int. Dec. No. 3359, 22 I & N Dec. 158 (Exam. Comm. Matter oflzumii, int. Dec. No. 3360, 22 I & N Dec. 169 (Exam. Comm. Matter of Hsuing, Int. Dec. No. 3361, 22 I & N Dec. 201 (Exam. Comm.

.
1998); 1998); 1998);

Matter oJ" Ho, Int. Dec. No. 3362, 22I

1998)[hereinafter

"precedent decisions"].

& N Dec. 206 (Exam. Comm.

Moreover, as a direct result of the new criteria and the ensuing questionable

state of the law, the immigrant investors' qualifying investments have been prevented from attracting new investors and have been frustrated in their ability to promote the job creation anticipated in the investors' business plans. [ER 6,71-72; _']16,112].
The INS is now in the process of retroactively revoking the immigrant

investors' lawful residence. [ER 71; _r¶l 108,110,111];[ER 101]. The INS is denying the Plaintiffs' applicaiions to remove the conditions of their residency in

proceedings that were designed simply to ensure that the investors "in good faith, substantially" sustained the previously approved planned investment and that the information submitted is "true." 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c); 8 U.S.C. § l186b(c)(3)(B),

INA § 216A(c)(3)(B). The INS instead now seeks to re-adjudicate the propriety

and structure of the investors' business and investment plans, which have been res

judicata for more than five years.

Absent judicial intervention, the investors face expulsion and potential bars

to reentering this country. [ER 5; _l 4.]; [ER 100]. They will lose the significant

financial resources that they placed in their investments. [ER 5-6; ¶5]. They will be

forced to give up the professional and educational opportunities

that they have

enjoyed for the past five years. [ER 5-6, _[5]. They will be uprooted from their now

familiar communities and suffer the shame in their own countries inherent from being ordered deported. [ER 5-6, ¶5];[ER 89, 94].
To challenge the INS' retroactive application of the law, the immigrant investors filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District

of California on October 12, 1999. [DE 1]. This action was brought by more than

two hundred (200) immigrant investors and their family members (totaling well

over 600).

At the suggestion of the district court to pare down the case, the

complaint was later styled as a Class action with seven named investor plaintiffs

and their families representing a putative class.

Tile Plaintiffs sought ddclaratory

and injunctive

relief preventing

the

Defendant fi'om applying the precedent decisions to them based on: (1) violation of

the APA; (2) abuse of discretion; (3) action exceeding statutory authority; (4)

violation of due process and equal protection; (5) uncompensated

taking; (6)

estoppel; and (7) improper retroactive application. [ER 1-80], On June 27, 2000, the Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. [DE

17]. This was granted in part an d denied in part by the district court on May 7, 2001. [DE 59; ER 144-45]. The district court determined that six of the seven named Plaintiffs did not have ripe claims, because the INS had not yet denied their

petition to remove the conditions on their residency. [ER 127-29]. The Court also

herd that it had jurisdiction over denied petitions to remove the conditions of

residency because Congress had not precluded review. [ER 129-30]. The district court then addressed the merits of the Defendant's motion as it

applied to the one individual (Plaintiff Chiang) who had received a decision terminating his residency. [ER 100]. The district court held that the complaint
failedto state a cause of action under the APA's notice and comment rule making.

[ER t27-29].

The district court also denied the Plaintiff's

failure to allege affirmative misconduct. [ER 141].

estoppel Claim for'

The district court, however, denied the Defendant's motion with respect to

the Plaintiff's

retroactivity

claim.[ER 138-39]. Rather than proceeding

to the

discovery phase on these counts, the Court remanded Plaintiff Chiang's petition to

the INS for due consideration of the retroactivity analysis in Montgomery FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9 th Cir. 1982)i

Ward v.

STATEMENT

OF FACTS

A.

The Immigrant

Investor Law

The Immigrant Investor Law was promulgated on November 29, 1990. In

order to obtain a visa under this law, an individual must: (1) establish a new

-commercial enterprise, 8 U.S.C. 8 l153(b)(5)(A)(i),

INA 8 203(b)(5)(A)(i);

(2)

invest or be actively in the process of investing either $1,000,000 in capital in the

enterprise or $500,000 in the case of an enterprise in a rural area or one

experiencing

high unemployment,

8 U.S.C. § l153(b)(5)(A)(ii),

(C), INA 8

203(b)(5)(A)(ii),

(C); and (3) create employment

for at least 10 United States

workers. 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(5)(A)(iii),

INA 8 203(b)(5)(A)(iiii).

•

Obtaining permanent residence through a qualifying investment is a two step

process. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b, INA § 216A; 8 C.F.R. 88 204.6, 216.6.

1.

First Step: Initial Petition To Determine Eligibility (I-526)

In order to obtain the approval of conditional residency, an investor submits

an 1-526 petition, 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a), accompanied

by extensive documents,

including: (i) the business organization

document; (ii) certificates

evidencing

authority to do business; or (iii) evidence that "as of a date certain after November 29, 1990," the required anaount of capital has been transferred to an existing

business resulting in a substantial increase in the net worth or number of

employees. 8 C.F.R § 204.6(j)(1 i.

The petitioner may also submit evidence such as bank statements and promissm2¢ notes. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(2)(i)-(v). In order to prove that the petitioner has invested lawfully acquired capital, the petitioner must submit

documents such as foreign business registration records, personal tax returns, and other evidence identifying sources of funds. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(3)(i)-(iv).
The regulations further recognize that partnerships consistent with the

Uniform Limited Partnership Act are "permissible." 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(g); 8 C.F.R.

§ 204.6(j)(5)(iii);

8 C.F.R. § 204.6(e); 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(m)(3)(iii).

The petition must be filed with the INS Service Center having jurisdiction

over the area in which the new commercial enterprise is or will be principally

doing business. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(b ). These Centers were selected to provide

consistency and to ensure that trained adjudicators reviewed the applications.

56

Fed Reg. 60897, 60902 (November 29, 1991)("The Service is concerned with

uniformity of adjudication and is concentrating

its training in this area at the

Service Centers").

Once the INS reviews this.extensive

documentation,

it issues a decision

approving or denying the 1-526 petition. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(k). A consular officer

abroad or an INS officer in the United States again reviews the material and the

individual's eligibility as part Of the immigrant visa or adjustment of status process before granting conditional residency. The immigrant investor and his family are thereafter admitted to the United States as conditional residents. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1), [NA § 216A(a)(1).

a.

Reconsideration

of the 1-526 petition

Congress gave the INS a limited time period to reconsider and rescind its

initial eligibility determination

if it finds that the qualifying entrepreneurship

is not

proper. 8 U.S.C. § l186b(b)(l),

INA § 216A(b)(1).

This authority is only valid

for the first two years after the alien is first admitted. Id. Termination may occur

if the INS determines that the establishment

of the commercial enterprise was to

evade immigration laws, the commercial enterprise was not established, the alien did not invest the requisite capital, or the alien did not otherwise conform to the

requirements

of 8 U.S.C.-9

1153(b)(5), INA § 203(b)(5).

l 186b(b)(l)(A)-(C),

INA § 216A(b)(I)(A)-(C).

See 8 U.S.C. §

2.

Second Step: Petition to Remove Conditions (1-829)

The immigrant investor must file a second petition ("I-829. petition") to

remove the "condition"

on residency within the 90-days before the second

anniversary of being admitted to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § I186b(c)(1)(a),

(d)(2)(a), INA § 216A(c)il)(a),

(d)(2)(a).

The 1-829 adjudication 1s a limited proceeding because the INS carefully

assesses and adjudicates all aspects of the nature and structure of the immigrant

investors' business and investment plans at the initial stage. The 1-829 proceeding

is designed simply to determine if the investor "in good faith, substantially"

"maintained"

and "sustained"

the qualifying investment throughout the alien's

condii_ional residence.

8 U.S.C. § l186b(d)(1)(C),

INA §216A(d)(1)(C);

8 C.F.R.

§ 216(c)(1)(iii).

The INS' statements in accompanying

the proposed and final

rules explain that whether the inVestment is "sustained '_ should be given a "liberal

interpretation"

that would "permit the Service maximum flexibility in determining

whether the prerequisites for removal of conditions have been met." 59 Fed. Reg.

1317 (January 10, 1994). 4

Rather than re-adjudicate the nature and structure of the. investment, the INS

nmst assess solely whether the supporting evidence and information is "true." If

the facts in the petition are deemed to be "tale," the attorney general is supposed to

remove the conditions.

8 U.S.C. § l186b(3)(B), INA § 216A(3)(B).

If the facts

4 The INS has ackalowledged that "a bona fide and good faith investment may not,

by the end of the two-year period£ meet all the expectations envisioned when the

alien entrepreneur

obtained conditional resident status." 59 Fed. Reg. 26587,

26588 (May 23, 1994). In illustrating its "flexibility,"

the INS described a

situation where the conditions would still be removed where the entire capitalwas

not invested because of "circumstances

beyond the alien's control." 59 Fed. Reg.

at 1318. Conditions will still be removed if the individual demonstrates that he or

she can and will invest the additional capital in a reasonable time. Id.

10

are found not to be true, residency is terminated as of the date of the decision. 8

U.S.C. § 1186b(3)C), INA § 216A(3)(C).

The distinct documentation requirements reflect the narrow and pro forma

nature of the proceeding.

For example, suggested evidence for the tbrmation of the

commercial

enterprise is simply federal income tax returns.

8 C.F.R. §

216.6(a)(4)(i).

This is in marked contrast to the extensive corporate documentation

that is required for the initial approval. 8 C.F.R. § 204.60).

B. The Individual Immigrant Investor Plaintiffs

All immigrant investors share similar characteristics.

They have all filed 1-

526 petitions based on investments in one of the Plaintiff partnerships.

[ER55-56;

¶83]. Each of these petitions wag accompanied by extensive documentation

fully

disclosing the nature and structure of the investment and business plan. [ER55-56;

¶83]. Each petition was reviewed by the INS and subsequently approved. [ER 4-

5, 55-56; ¶113, 83]. They were all granted adjustment of status to that of lawful

permanent resident on a conditional basis. [ER 4-5, 55-56; ¶¶3, 83].

The

investors maintained in good faith their investments as set forth in their 1-526

petitions.

[E.R. 14, I[33]. The INS never took any action during the two-year

statutory period to rescind or revoke any of those approvals.

Most, if not all of the immigrant investors, sold homes and businesses, and

liquidated assets to emigrate to the United States. [ER 13-I4; ¶ 32]. Upon arrival,

11

the Investor Plaintiffs and their families found new residences, joined religious or

charitable organizations,

transferred foreign assets and investments, enrolled in

schools, purchased automobiles,

established

new businesses,

friendships,

and

social and professional

relationships,

obtained driver's licenses, social security

cards, and bank accounts, acti,)ely participated in their schools and communities, and fulfilled their dream of lawfully residing in the United States. [ER 13-14,
32]

Many of the investors' children left school in their native countries. [ERI 3-

14, ¶ 32]. Due to the fundamental differences between the educational system of

the United States and that ofK0rea, Taiwan, China, and the other countries from

which these children came, it would be almost impossible for these children to re-

adapt or reintegrate into the educational system of their native land. [ER 14, ¶33].

Many of these children are no longer fluent in their native tongues, but have now

become fluent in English, complicating

any possible return to an educational

system outside the United States. [ER 14; ¶33]. All of the education received in

America would thus be in vain, and this possibility has harmed, and continues to

haml, the emotional and physical well-being of the children and their Investor

Plaintiffparents.

[ER 14, ¶ 33].

The immigrant investors all would never have made their substantial investments, uprooted their families, and immigrated to the United States had they

12

known that the INS would change its criteria after their arrival so that their

investments would fail. [ER 57; ¶87].

All of the Plaintiffs timely filed their 1-829 petitions to remove the

conditions of their residence. [ER 14, 55-56; ¶¶ 33, 83]. Of the named Plaintiffs, only Plaintiff Chiang has received a denial of his 1-829 petition to remove the

conditions of his residency. [DE 41; ER 97-114]. Many putative class.members

likewise received denials. [DE 46, 52, 57, 60].

C. The Partnership Plaintiffs (i.e. the qualifying investments)

The investment vehicles were specifically designed by the Partnerships in

order to comply with the existing law governing the approval of 1-526 and I_829

petitions.

[ER 54,56-57;

9¶77,86].

The investments

were designed

after

consultation with the INS and were repeatedly approved in adjudications

where

full disclosure was made about the nature of the Plaintiffs' investments.

[ER 56;

84]. 5

5 For example, in 1996, the Department of State asked the INS to review a number

of petitions that were being submitted by immigrant investors related to the

partnerships

in which the plaintiffs invested. After several weeks of discussion

with representatives

of AIS and their counsel, the INS determined that a number of

changes were required for compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The

partnerships

were changed in order to ensure that they complied with the

representations

made by [iNS about the requirements

of the existing regulatory

structure. Once these changes were made, the petitions involving the partnerships

were approved. [ER 148-49].

13

Immigrant investors who participated

in the partnerships

invested either

$500,000 or $1,000,000. [ER 54; ¶78]. Typically, the investor would make a substantial initial cash payment of $125,000, $200,000, or $300,000, plus a promissory note for the remainder of the investment. [ER 54, ¶78]. The balance of

the promissory note was generally required to be paid in four or five annual installments followed by a final balloon payment, which is paid after the two-year

conditional period has expired and the immigrant investor has achieved lawful permanent resident status. [ER 54; ¶78].
Under most investor agreements, the partnership agrees to pay the immigrant

investor a mininmm annual return on the invested cash based upon the partnership

having available funds. [ER 55; ¶ 81]. The immigrant investor is also granted: ;an

option to sell his limited partnership interest back to the partnership after the

balance of the promissory note has been fully paid. [ER 55; ¶ 81]. The partnership

has a corresponding

option to buy back the immigrant

investor's

limited

partnership interest at that time. [ER 57; ¶ 81 ].

D.

The Defendant Issues "Precedent

Decisions" Rather Than Proceed By

Promised Notice and Cotnment Rule Making

In 1995, the INS officiallylannounced

in the Federal Register its intention to

make changes in the adjudicatign

of immigrant investor petitions through the

participatol3, and prospective rule making process. 60 Fed. Reg. 29771, 29772 (June 6, 1995)("The Service will issue a separate proposed regulation on petitions

14

for employment

creation aliens at a later date").

Further promises and

proclamations

of the intent to engage only in prospectivenotice

and comment rule

making were also made in 1996 and later throughout 1997. [ER 57; ¶ 88]. 6

The INS had drafted regulations in "final form" before December, 19 1997,

amending the INS' criteria for approving investment petitions. [ER 58; _ 92]. The

regulations were never published. Instead, the INS General CounseEs Office

placed its new investment criteria in a memorandum

dated December 19, 1997.

[ER 58-59; _l 92-93]. All of the Plaintiffs' cases were then placed on hold because

they involved pooled investments, a feature now repudiated by the memorandum.

[ER 58-62; _ 90, 99]. The General Counsel memorandum

was made public and

attached to operating instructions on March 11, 1998. [ER 58-59; ¶ 93, 94].

The Service

Centers

were then instructed
i

to forward

Administrative

Appeals Office that reflected all issues covered

cases to the in the specific

terms of the hold to serve as the "precedent decisions."

[ER 62; ¶ 100]. On June

12, 1998, the Acting Associate COmmissioner of Programs issued a memorandum

explaining that the Administratiye

Appeals Office had received 19 immigrant

investor petitions o11 certification: from the four Service Centers (pursuant to the March 11, 1998, Operating Instruction), and was preparing decisions on these

cases. [ER 62; ¶ 101].

6 See supra note 2. 15

The INS then designated four "precedent decisions." [ER 62; ¶ 101]. These decisions were reviewed and approved the INS General Counsel before the Administrative Appeals Office issued them. [ER 62; ¶ 102].

E.

The Precedent

Decisions Radically

Changed tile INS' Criteria For

Approving Investments

Prior to the issuance of the precedent decisions, each and every one of the

following elements had been permitted by the regulations and the statute: (1) the

establishment

of a new commercial enterprise by multiple limited partners who

invest in a limited partnership after the time the limited partnership was legally

formed; (2) active management in the business in conformance with the Uniform

Limited Partnership Agreement; (3) use of promissory notes without limitations;

(4) redemption

agreements;

(5) guaranteed

payments

to investors;

(6) the

deduction of legitimate business expenses from the capital contribution;

(7) the

valuation of promissory notes at face value; (8) promissory notes without time

limitations; (9) security for the promissory notes need not be perfected under the

UCC's standards; (10) investments

containing trust agreements;

(11) holding

companies make the full amount of capital available to the businesses responsible

for creating the employment;

(12) escrow accounts meet the qualifying capital

contribution amount and are sufficiently "at risk" pending the approval of the 1-526

petition. [ER 59, 63-70; ¶94, 104].

16

The apparent consistency of these pre-precedent decision features with the

statute and regulations is confirmed by INS memoranda, consistent adjudication , and most importantly, the approval of each of the immigrant investors' own 1-526

petitions. [ER 59,60-61,70; ¶ 94,96,105]. Indeed, these investment features are all present in each Plaintiff investors' previously approved investment and business plans. [ER 59; ¶ 94]. The :above listed features are now all viewed as impermissible by the INS. [ER 63-70; ¶ 104, 105].
A review of the denial in Plaintiff Chiang's case illustrates that the INS applied the new criteria in the precedent decisions to deny his 1-829 petition. [ER

101]("The INS published four precedent decisions . . . this petition has been reviewed in accordance with these decisions").

F.

Procedural History

After filing of the original :complaint on October 12, 1999, the district court

held a scheduling conference on February 71 2000, and requested that Plaintiffs file

an amended complaint by March 22, 2000. [DE 11]. In an effort to focus the case

more directly on Defendant's change in criteria, the Plaintiffs, at the district court's

suggestion, filed a class action complaint on March 7, 2000. [DE 12].

Oral argument was held before this Court on October 16, 2000, on

Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for a Judgment on the

Pleadings. [DE 17]. Pursuant to the Court's oral reques t at the October 16, 2000

17

hearing, the parties briefed the issue of retroactivity and applied the factors in

Montgomery Ward v. FTC, 69.1 F.2d 1322, 1333 (9 tu Cir. 1982). [DE 37].

The Defendant then began denying the investors' 1-829 petitions based On the criteria set forth in the precedent decisions. [ER 101]. In response, Plaintiffs

sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the INS from denying the 1-829

petitions of the immigrant investors. [DE 35]. In order to extend the protection of

this temporary restraining order to all members of the putative class, Plaintiffs

sought provisional class certification. [DE 42]. The Court denied the request for a

temporary restraining order arid deferred ruling on the Plaintiffs' request for class

certification.

[DE 39].

Additional oral argument Was held on the Defendant's

motion to dismiss

on March 27, 2001. The iss/ies before the Court primarily concerned tile

Plaintiffs' retroactivity based claims and the Montgomery Ward factors. • On May 7, 2001, the Court denied in part and granted in part the

Defendant's motion. [DE 59]. The Court determined that, of the named plaintiffs,

Plaintiff Chiang's claims were the only ones that were justiciable because he had

received notice of denial of his 1-829 petition. [ER 129]. As to Plaintiff Chiang,

i

the district court denied Defendant's

motion as to count VII (Retroactivity)

and,

insofar as they implicated retroadtivity, count II (Abuse of Discretion) and count

IV (Due Process). The Court however dismissed with prejudice count I (APA),

18

count III (Exceeding Statutory Authority), and count VI (Estoppel), and dismissed in part with prejudice count II (Abuse of Discretion) and IV (Due Process).
Furthermore, the order dismissed, without prejudice, six of the seven named Plaintiff Investors on grounds that their claims were not ripe for adjudication because they had not yet received a notice of denial of their 1-829 petitions.
The Court also ruled that, in light of its order, Plaintiffs' Motions .for ClaSs Certification and to set Discovery Schedule were moot. The Court essentially considered the Plaintiffs' claims only with respect to the seven named individual plaintiffs.
19

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The district court ened in drawing a distinction in its ripeness analysis

between plaintiffs who have pending 1-829 petitions and those who have received

denials. This Court does not require Damocles' sword to fall before accepting

jurisdiction in actions for declaratory relief. City of Auburn v. Qwest Corporation,

260 F.3d 1160, 1171 (9 m Cir. 2001). This is particularly so where it can be firmly

predicted that the challenged agency action to retroactively apply new criteria will

eventually operate to den), all of the Plaintiffs' pending petitions because they are

all based on similarly structured but now disfavored investments.

Freedom to

Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1434 (9 th Cirl 1994).

The district court also abused its discretion in failing to certify the Plaintiffs'

action as a class action as a result of its ripeness ruling. The Plaintiffs satisfy all

requirements

for maintaining

a class action which would efficiently bring all

Plaintiffs within the purview of the court.

The district court also erred in denying Plaintiff Chiang's claim of estoppel

on a motion for judgment on the p!eadings where the complaint alleges affirmative misconduct and where the Plaintiffs were not afforded any opportunity to conduct

discovery to support their claim. Furthermore, affirmative misconduct is evident in

this case by the fact that the INS: (1) approved the individual Plaintiffs' "non-

approvable"

immigrant petitions and admitted them to begin new lives in this

20

country; (2) actively misinformed the Plaintiffs that any changes to the immigrant investor law would be made in a prospective manner through notice and comment rule making; and (3) actively concealed from the Plaintiffs the Defendant's true
intent to retroactively apply the new criteria to the Plaintiffs' previously approved investments. Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9 th Cir. 1989)(en banc); Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868 (9 th Cir. 1982); Sun II t'oo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325 (9 th Cir. 1976); United states v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406(9 th Cir. 1975); Gestuvo v. District DirectoJ, INS,: 337 F.Supp. 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 1971).

The district court also erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim that the INS

was required to comply with notice and comment.

The precedent decisions do

amend and add new criteria to the regulations and statute. This is particularly true

with respect to the rule established in the precedent decisions that no longer

permitted partners in ULPA partnerships

if the partner entered the partnership

subsequent to the formation of the partnership. The defendant likewise amended

the statute and regulations by expanding the nmvow scope of the 1-829 adjudication

to essentially re-adjudicate

the investors' initial eligibility.

Furthermore,

this

Court's jurisprudence

holds that rules announced in adjudications are not immune

from notice and comment where the proceedings were designed to circumvent

notice and comment and where_the new rules would unsettle vested equitable

interests leading to hardship. Paff.v. HUD, 88 F.3d 739 (9 'h Cir. 1996); FordMotor

21

Co. v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008, 1009-10 (9" Cir.1981); Yesler Terrace Community

Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442, 449 (9 th Cir. 1994); Patel, 638 F.2d 1199, 1203-

05 (9th Cir. 1980); Ruangswang v. INS, 591 F.2d 39, 44 (9 th Cir.1978). Finally, the

precedent decisions contradict long standing administrative

practice and therefore

necessitate notice and comment rulemaking. Alaska Professional Hunters Ass 'n v.

FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Shell Offshore Inc. v. Babbitt, 238F.3d 622 (5 th Cir. 2001).

The district court's errors prevented hundreds of investors from obtaining

injunctive and declaratory relief to protect their judicially cognizable interests.

Indeed, without question, this Court's jurisprudence

squarely disfavors an agency's

attempt to apply retroactively a new standard of law, where the resulting harm will

devastate hundreds of immigrant investors and their families who uprooted their

lives at the formal invitation of the INS - and who are now subject to expulsion

simply because the INS has changed its mind.

22

ARGUMENT

I.

ALL PLAINTIFFS HAVE RIPE AND JUSTICIABLE

CLAIMS

The district court determined that only one of the seven named plaintiffs

(Plaintiff Chiang) had claims that were ripe for adjudication.

This holding is

predicated on the erroneous notion that an immigrant investor's claim is only ripe

when the INS denies an 1-829 petition, and that an investor is only harmed when

the application is denied. A. Standard of Review

A district court's determination of whether a claim is ripe for adjudication is reviewed de novo. Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1434(9 th Cir.

1994)("The ripeness of a claim is reviewed de novo"). B. All Individual Plaintiffs Claims Meet the Criteria for Ripeness The question of whether a claim is ripe for adjudication depends on both

constitutional

and prudential

considerations.

City of Auburn v. Qwesl

Corporation, 260 F.3d 1160, 1171 (9 th Cir. 2001); Thomas v, Anchorage Equal

Rights Commission, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9 th Cir. 2000)(en bane).

The constitutional

component is generally flamed as "whether the plaintiffs

face a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury" as a result of the challenged

act. Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1139; Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1171. The prudential

considerations

consistof

two factors: (1) whether the issue is fit for judicial

23

decision and (2) whether the parties Will suffer hardship if the court declines to

consider theissue. Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1171; Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1141.

1. All Individual Plaintiffs' Claims Are Ripe Because They All Face A Realistic Danger Of Sustaining A Direct Injury

The existence of the precedent decisions and the INS' clear threat and

history of unlawfully enforcing them against the Plaintiffs are sufficient to create a

ripe controversy. Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1171; accord Thomas, 220 F.3d at 1139-40

(analyzing criteria for establishing a realistic
i
Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1968).

threat of direct injury);

Abbott

This Court "does not require Damocles' sword to fall before [it] recognize[s]

the realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury." Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1172; see

also Thomas v. Union Carbide Agriculture Products Company, 473 U.S. 568, 581 -

(1985)("One does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough").

The new criteria announced in the precedent decisions have a direct and

deleterious effect on the Plaintiffs. There is no question that the individual

Plaintiffs' participation in the partnerships no longer qualify under the new criteria.

This is evidenced by the fact that.the precedent decisions now reject several key

features of the method and structure of the Plaintiffs' previously approved

investments. To illustrate, all of the denials in this case issued to date were denied

because: (1) the investor was not a partner at the inception of the partnership [ER

24

102-03]; (2) the promissory note' was insufficient because 'it was valued at face

value and the note did not adequately demonstrate the personal assets securing the

note [ER 104-05]; (3) the partnership agreement contains a redemption agreement

[ER 105-07]; (4) the partnership agreement contains a guaranteed return on

investment [ER 106-07]; (5) the partnership agreement permits payment of the

promissory note beyond the two-year conditional residency period [ER 107-08);

(6) the investment agreement made by the partnership provides for trusts .or cash reserve payments [ER 108-09]. Each of these are common features of all of the

Plaintiffs' investments, and all were previously approvable features that were

subsequently rejected in the precedent decisions. [ER 59, 63-70; ¶¶94,104,105].

Thus, there is no question that the INS will use the new criteria to deny their

petitions to remove the conditions of their residency. The denial terminates their

lawful status in the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(C),

INA §

216A(c)(3)(C), and thus subjects :them to imminent deportation, which has long

been considered a very serious and harsh consequence. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 154, 65 S.Ct. 1443, 89 L.Ed. 2103 (1945)("that deportation is a penalty-at

times a most serious one-cannot be doubted")

Furthermore, it can be "firmly predicted" lhat absent judicial intervention,

the INS will unlawfully retroactively apply the precedent decisions to re-adjudicate

the propriety of the Plaintiffs' investments in assessing the 1-829 petitions. All

25

Plaintiffs have filed 1-829 petitions to remove the conditions on their residency,

[ER 14; 733]. By statute, the INS thus must adjudicate them. 8 U.S.C. §

1186b(c)(3)(A)(ii),

INA § 216A(c)(3)(A)(ii).

The INS' past adjudication of the immigrant investors'

1-829 petitions

reveals that the INS is clearly applying the precedent decisions in all decisions

involving partners in the plaintiff partnerships.

Thus, it can befirmly predicted

that INS will continue to do so to the Plaintiffs.

Moreover, in order to quell the uncertainty in their status, Plaintiffs are faced

with a choice of abandoning

their hopes at residency with their previously

approved investment and beginning the lengthy process anew with a new business

plan and investment that may or nqay not be approved] Their other option is to

simply remain in their precarious unsettled immigration

status awaiting the

inevitable unlawful denial which will subject them to deportation and a bar from

reentering the United States. AS this Courtnoted

in Qwest, such a "Hobson's

Choice" puts the Plaintiffs "in a dilemma that it was the very purpose of the

Declaratory Judgment Act to ameliorate."

Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1172.

a.

The district

court's

reliance

on Catholic

Social

Service, is misplaced

v The Plaintiffs will lose the substantial

time accrued toward eligibility

for

citizenship.

26

In finding that the claims of the Plaintiffs with pending 1-829 applications

were not yet ripe, the district court placed unwarranted

reliance on Reno v.

Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S.. 43 (1993). Freedom to Travel, 82 F.3d at 1436

(distinguishing

Catholic Social Se_wices and expressly

adopting

Justice

O'Connor's "firm prediction" rule).

In Catholic Social Services, the Supreme Court stated that a claim is

"ordinarily"

ripe when the challenged regulation has been applied to deny a

plaintiff the benefit that she sought. Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. at 60. 8 The

district court's reliance on this statement in Catholic Social Services failed to take

account of this Circuit's express adoption of Justice O'Connor's rule in Freedom to Travel, 82 F.3d at 1436.

"firm prediction"

The "firm prediction" rule pragmatically

eliminates the need to await an

inevitable application of a regulation to a plaintiff prior to determining

that a

challenge is justiciable.

Id., quoting, Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. at 69

8 In Catholic Social Services, the Supreme Court, in assessing the ripeness of the

plaintiffs claims made a distinction between regulations that Create an "immediate

dilemma" that force the individual to pay the cost to comply with the regulation, or

suffer penalties for failure to comply and those that confer a benefit. The Court

opined that those that created an "immediate dilemma" tended to give rise to ripe',

claims prior to enforcement

whereas benefit conferring

regulations

required

enforcement.

The instant challenge is more analogous to an "immediate dilemma"

situation than rules concerning a benefit. This is because the Plaintiffs in this case,

unlike the plaintiffs in Catholic Social Services, already have been conferred a benefit in the forna of conditional residence. The Plaintiffs are thus challenging the

application of the precedent decisions which will operate to inflict a harm - being

stripped of their lawful status and deported.

27

(O'Connor, J., concurring)("If it is 'inevitable' that the challenged rule will 'operat[e]' to the plaintiffs disadvantage - if the court can make a firm prediction that the plaintiff will apply for the benefit, and that the agency will deny the application by virtue of the rule - then there may be a justiciable controversy that the.court may find prudent to resoh, e").
When applying tile Freedom' to Travel decision to the instant case, it is clear that the district court erred in detemlining that all individual claims were not ripe. Indeed, in Freedom to Travel, the Court found a justiciable controversy notwithstanding the fact that the p!aintiff- a tour operator challenging the Cuban Asset Control Regulation's licensee scheme for travel to Cuba - had not yet been denied, let alone applied for a license for travel to Cuba. Freedom to Travel, 82 F.3d at 1436.
The Court was able to firmly predict that if the plaintiff applied it would be denied because none of the plaintiffs' travel activities were covered by the regulation. Id. In the instant cast, the INS will deny all Of the Plaintiffs' 1-829 petitions because several key elements of the structure of the previously approved investments were expressly rejected in the precedent decisions and held unapprovable. Thus, because all Plaintiffs have pending 1-829 petitions and share the same unapprovable features, the district court clearly could have made a fima
28

predication that the unchecked application of the precedent decisions would have resulted in a denial.

2.

All Individual

Plaintiffs'

Claims Are Ripe Because The

Disputed Issues Are Primarily Legal

Issues which are purely legal and require little factual development are more likely to be ripe. Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1172. The individual Plaintiffs' claims

presen t essentially legal questions, inter alia: (a) whether the INS' has legal authority to promulgate new criteria in "precedent decisions" and to apply that

criteria retroactively to the immigrant investors with a previously approved 1-526

petition; (b) whether the Defendant's

conduct violates the APA's notice and

comment requirements;

and (c) whether applying the new criteria announced in

the precedent decisions to the Plaintiffs contradicts the regulations and statute; (d)

and whether the Defendant's conduct gives rise to the elements of estoppel. The

nature of these issues are no diffel:ent in scope from the legal questions presented

in Freedom to Travel, 82 F.3d at 1434 (whether regulations

contradict

an

international treaty); UnionCarbide,

473 U.S. at 581 (constitutionality

of remedial

scheme); Qwest, 260 F.3d at 1172 (preemption of city ordinances).

3.

All individualPlaintiffs'

claims are ripe because they will

suffer hardship if the court declines to consider the issue

Furthermore, both the agency and the plaintiffs clearly suffer a hardship in

light of the uncertainty that exists as to the propriety of applying the precedent

29

decisions to the Plaintiffs' 1-829 petitions. In Union Carbide, the Supreme Court

held that the uncertain state of the law was a sufficient hardship tO prompt judicial

review: "[t]o require the industry to proceed without knowing whether the

[arbitration scheme] is valid would impose a palpable and considerable hardship."

Union Carbide, 473 U.S. at 581. Indeed as the Court further stated that"..,

each

appellee . . . suffers the continuing uncertainty and expense of depending fi_r

compensation

on a process :whose authority

is undermined

because its

constitutionality

is in question." Union Carbide, 473 U.S. at 581 (internal citations

omitted).

Just as the Supreme Court held in Union Carbide, it is true here that

"nothing would be gained by postponing a decision, and the public interest would

be well served by a prompt resolution" of the propriety of the INS' actions. Id. at 582.

II.

THE PLAINTIFFS'

CLASS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED

A.

Standard of Review

A district court's denial of class certification

is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. Knight v. Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist., 131 F.3d 807, 816 (9 th

Cir. 1997).

B.

The District Court Abused Its Discretion

In Denying Plaintiffs'

Motion For Class Certification In Error

Where The Ripeness Ruling Was

30

The district court abused its discretion in failing to certify the Pl_iintiffs' putative class where the district court's ripeness ruling was in error and where the error led the court to deny certification. Knight, 131 F.3d at 816-871 (abuse of

discretion where erroneous ruling on mootness resulted in failure to address

request for class action).

In addition, the Plaintiffs'

complaint sufficiently

alleges all necessary

requirements to sustain a class action. The proposed class include more than 25;0

immigrant investors and their beneficiaries.

[ER 11; ¶20]. This is a number

sufficiently numerous to make joinder impracticable.

Jordan v. Los Angele.s

County, 669 F.2d 1311, 1320'(9 th Cir. 1982)(citing

cases) vacated on other

grounds, 459 U.S. 810 (1982).

The Plaintiffs also alleged their sufficient

commonality

exists among the class members' claims to warrant class treatment.

[ER 12,_]22, 28-33]; Walters v. 'Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9 th Cir. 1998). A

finding of commonality

generally supports a finding of typicality.

General

Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 157 (1982).

There are common legal questions concerning whether: (1) the Defendant

may apply the precedent decisions retroactively to immigrant investors who have

received approved 1-526 petitions; (2) the Defendant's

actions legally constitute

affirmative misconduct; and (3) the Defendant was required to proceed by notice

and comment under the APA betbre issuing the precedent decisions, and/or

31

applying them to the adjudication
112].

of an 1-829 petition. [ER 11, 50-72; ¶¶21, 63-

The Plaintiffs' complaint is also replete with factual allegations attesting to:

(1) the identical structures of the investment vehicles [ER 54-57; ¶77-87]; (2)the similar procedural posture of each Plaintiff; (3) the similar burdens, harms, and

hardships that each face [ER 12-14, ¶¶29-33]; (4) the similar unlawful conduct of

the Defendant [ER 57-72, ¶¶88-112]; Plaintiff seeks. [ER 77-80].

and (5) the similar remedies that each

The Plaintiffs are likewise seeking identical declaratory and injunctive relief

in order to prevent the Defendant from denying their 1-829 petitions because of its

improper administration

of the Immigrant

Investor Law and its unlawful

retroactive application of new criteria. [ER 57-80, ¶¶88-112]. Thus, the action

would satisfy Federal Rule 23(b)(2). Walters, 145 F.3d at 1046-1047.

Failure to certify will necessarily result in more than 250 immigrant

investors and their beneficiaries

filing repeated separate lawsuits against the

Defendant and, unless consolidated, could result in disparate rulings.

Ill. THE

DISTRICT

COURT

ERRED

IN DISMISSING

THE

PLAINTIFFS'

CLAIM

OF ESTOPPEL

FOR FAILURE

TO

DEMONSTRATE

AFFIRMATIVE

MISCONDUCT

A.

Standard of Review:

32

A district court's determination of whether the Plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief may be granted is reviewed de novo. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland,
255 F.3d 734, 737 (9 tia Cir. 2001). Review is limited to the contents of the

complaint: Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9 th Cir. 2001).

Furthermore, all allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Burget v. Lokelani Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661,663 (9 th Cir. 2000) A complaint must not be dismissed unless it appears beyond all dolibt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Williamson v.

General Dynamic Corp., 208 F.3d 1 [44, 1149 (9 th Cir. 2000).

B.

The Plaintiffs Have Properly Asserted A Prima Facie Claim For

Estoppel

It is well established in this Circuit that the dectrine of estoppel may be

applied to the government.

Watkins, 875 F.2d 699. In order to assert a claim of

estoppel against the government,

a party must establish the following special

elements: (a) affirmative

misconduct;

(b) serious injustice; and (c) the public

interest will not suffer undue damage. Watkins, 875 F.2d at 707. These latter two

elements are often balanced against each other, ld. at 708-09. These special

elements arc in addition to the traditional elements of estoppel:

(1) The party to be estopp6d must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be :acted on or must so act that the party
asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; (3) the

33

latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the fonner's conduct to his injury.

Watkins, 875 F.2d at 709, quoting United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406, 412 (9 th

Cir. 1975).

In dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim of estoppel, the district court addressed

only the element of affirmative misconduct.

The district court's assessment of the

element of affirmative misconduct failed to properly apply this Court's analysis to

determine what constitutes affirmative misconduct.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs meet

all other elements required for estoppel.

1.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint Sufficiently Alleges Misconduct

To Overcome a Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings

Where No Discovery Was Permitted

The district court erred when it dismissed Plaintiff Chiang's estoppel claim

when the complaint averred that the Defendant had engaged in affirmative

misconduct. [ER 76,{[142](Defendant

should be estopped as its wrongful acts and

affirmative misconduct have caused and will continue to cause a serious injustice

to the Plaintiffs and the imposition of liability will not damage the public

interest").

In light of the procedural posture of the case, such an allegation is

clearly sufficient to sustain a complaint in the wake of a motion for judgment on

the pleadings.

This is particularly true where the district court .did not permit the

Plaintiffs any discovery - particularly where the Plaintiffs called the court's.

attention to the need to set a discoveu schedule [ER 115-20]. Metabolife Intern...

34

Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9 th Cir. 2001)("the Supreme Court has restated

the rule as requiring, rather than merely permitting,

discovery

'where the

nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is

essential to its opposition.'"),

quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 250 n. 5, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

2.

The INS Engaged In Affirmative Misconduct

Under this Court's jurisprudence,

it was affirmative misconduct for the

Defendant

to: (a) approve the iiadividual Plaintiffs'
i

"non-approvable"

immigrant

petitions and admit them to begin new lives in this country; (b) misinform the

Plaintiffs that any changes to the immigrant investor law would be made in a prospective manner through notice and comment rule making; and (c) conceal

from the Plaintiffs the Defendant's

true intent to retroactively

apply the new

criteria to the Plaintiffs' previously approved investments:

Affirmative misconduct has been described as requiring "an affirmative

misrepresentation

or affirmative

concealment

of a material fact by the

government."

Watkins, 875 F.2d at 707. Affirmative misconduct does no_tt require

an intention to mislead the party. Id.

A careful review of the analysis undertaken in Watkins by this Court (en

banc) illustrates that the INS engaged similarly in affirmative misconduct in this

case. In Watkins, the Court held that the Army was estopped from applying its

35

valid rules prohibiting the re-enlistment of homosexuals to the plaintiff. Watkins,

875 F.2d at 711. In Watkins, the affirmative misconduct was simply the act of

classifying the plaintiff as eligible for enlistment with knowledge that he was a

homosexual when the applicable rules prohibited re-enlistment of homosexuals.

C.)5.

Johnson, 682-F.2d 868 (estoppel where government granted parole to an individual who in light of his offense was statutorily barred from receiving parole).

This Circuit reached a similar result in finding misconduct ill Wharton. In

that case, affirmative misconduct had been proven when the Bureau of Land

Management issued a letter informing an individual ttiat there was nothing that he

could do to obtain a patent to the land on which his family had a farm. Wharton,

514 F.2d at 408, 412. The Bureau's statement was inconsistent with the state of

the law, and the individual in reality had five months to apply for a patent under-

the Desert-Land Entry Act. Id;cf. Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872 (active misadvice

regarding eligibility parole). Thus, under this Circuit's analysis in Watkins and Wharton, the act of

issuing or making a formal determination

constitutes the "affimaative act," which

is then characterized as misconduct when it is inconsistent with the law.

The INS' actions in this case are no different from the Army's actions .in

Watkins or the Bureau of Land Management's

in Wharton. The individual investor

Plaintiffs in this case were ali affirmatively

classified as eligible under the

i
36

Immigrant Investor Law after a review of their business and investment plans. They were all issued approved 1-526 petitions and were admitted to the United States as lawful residents. Thesleacts are equally, if not more, affirmative than the act of classifying the plaintiff in lYatla'ns as eligible for re-enlistment in the Military's records.
Furthermore, if indeed the manner and structure of the individual investors' investments and business plans never complied with the Immigrant Investor Law as the INS contends - then the approval of the Plaintiffs' 1-526 petitions and their
admission as residents may be characterized for estoppel purposes as affirmative

misconduct.

Watkins, 707-708 (affirmative

act is classifying

the plaintiff as

eligible to re-enlist; misconduct found because it is against rules to classify

homosexuals as eligible); Wharton, 514 F.2d at 408,412 (affirmative act is issuing

letter stating that individual could do nothing to obtain a patent; misconduct found because the law still provided five months to obtain a patent).

Thus, under the Watkins and Wharton analysis, it is clear that the district court erred in determining that the Plaintiffs did not establish the INS' affirmative misconduct.

The Defendant also engaged in affirmative misconduct when it actively

misled the public that it intended to make changes to the Immigrant Investor Law

in prospective participatory

rule making procedures when instead it devised a

37

strategy to retroactively deny the Plaintiffs' I426 petitions. [ER 57-.58; ¶¶ 88, 90, 92]. Indeed, the INS knew that 'it was not permissible to apply the changes of the type it envisioned retroactively, and spoke repeatedly of the need to apply the law prospectively. 9 Notwithstanding, they engineered a process to circumvent the

participatory notice and comment process that they had been actively holding out to the public they planned to use. [ER 57-58; ¶88, 90, 92]. cf Sun [l Yoo .v INS,

534 F.2d 1325 (9 th Cir. 1976)(alien was told to file new petitions rather then appeal

adverse decision, but under law at new filing did not qualify); see also Wharton,

514 F.2d at 408,412 (affirmative misconduct to give misleading information).

3.

The Impending

Deportation

Of The Plaintiffs Or Any

Other Serious Injustice That Will Result If The Defendant

Is Not Estopped Public Interest

Outweighs

Any Potential Damage To The

If the Plaintiffs' 1-829 petition is denied, they will immediately

lose their

lawful status in this country, which subjects them to deportation and possible bars

to re-entry. Affirmative misconduct which threatens deportation is considered a

serious injustice sufficient to estop the INS. Sun II Yoo, 534 F.3d at 1329

(deportation viewed as a profbund and unconscionable

injury); Gestuvo v. District

9 [ER 149]("In 1996, I believed that the appropriate course for resolving lingering

questions about this arrangement

would be to publish a regulation to clearly

establish our requirements");

[ER 153]("this should all take effect prospectively..

• we need to do this in a very positive and forward looking manner and not take a

position that will unnecessaril7

hurt individuals who have relied on the prior

decisions")

38

Director, INS, 337 F.Supp. 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 1971)("This case is before the

court because the Immigration and Naturalization

Service changed its mind: as a

result, petitioner faces deportation);

Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199, 1205 (9 th Cir.

1981); Maceren v. District Directol, INS, 509 F.2d 934, 940 (9 th Cir. 1975); cf

Johnson, 682 F.2d 871-72 (serious injustice to revoke parole of a statutorily un.paroIable convict after several reviews indicating his eligibility and 15 months-of

parole release).

As a result of their loss of status and deportation, the Plaintiffs will suffer the

injustice of losing all the time, energy, and assets that they have expendedover

the

last five to six years in immigrating to this country and integrating into their local

communities.

[ER 5; ¶ 5]. They will lose their new careers and educational.

opportunities.

[ER 13; ¶ 30, 31]..Furtl!en_lore,

after several years of schooling in

the United States, their young children will be forced to .re-adapt to a now

unfamiliar or unknown system. [ER 13; ¶ 31]. These losses are compounded by the fact that the Plaintiffs in many cases
left successful careers and liquidated substantial assets in their native countries in

order to pursue a new life in theUnited States. [ER 13-14; ¶ 32]. Losses &this

type are well recognized as serions injustices.

Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872 (serious

injustice to revoke parole after 15 months of successful reintegration);

Wharton,

514 F.2d at 412 ("Governmental!conduct

would work a serious injustice if this

39

family were divested of the home in which they have invested so much of themselves").

Furthermore, there simply _s no injury to the public interest if the Plaintiffs are allowed to remain in this country as lawful permanent residents. The proposition is illustrated by the case of Gestuvo, 337 F.Supp. 1093 (C.D. Cal.

1971). In that case, then district court Judge Pregerson held that the INS was

estopped from denying the intending immigrant's adjustment of status, when the service first approved his application, for labor certification, but later effectively

reversed that decision during hisladjustment

of status interview where essentially

nothing factually had changed - except that the INS' mind had changed. As the court stated,

The national interest lies in a conscientious

review by the Service of

the applications

that are submitted to it at the time of their

submission:

it does not lie in sacrificing a man's efforts and hopes to

a mechanical and inhuman application of administrative

regulations.

People...

rely on the Service to reach accurate rulings on which they

can base their plans.

i
Id. at 1102-1103 (emphasis added); see also Watkins, 875 F.2d at 709 ("When the

government deals carefully, honestly and fairly with its citizens, the public interest

is likewise benefited")(internal

quotations omitted).

4.

The INS Was Fully Aware Of The Structure Of The

Plaintiffs' Investments

When They Were First Approved

And Granted Residency

40

The INS was fully aware.of the structure of the Plaintiffs when they were first approved and granted residency. The 1-526 petitions require that the immigrant investor fully document the structure of the investment and provide the business plans. 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(a)(1). The Plaintiffs have alleged that they fully disclosed all aspects of their investment structures. [ER 55; ¶[83]; Guestavo, 337
i
F.Supp. at 1101 (Service is aware of all facts submitted with the petition).

Moreover, the Partnerships themselves were repeatedly engaged in dialogue with

the INS in order to ensure that they would satisfy the Immigrant Investor Law.

7

5.

The Plaintiffs Are Entitled To Rely On Their Approved 1-

526 Petitions'

The Plaintiffs have a substantial

reliance interest in their official

determination

of eligibility to become pmxnanent residents because they all

received an adjudicated and approved 1-526 petitions. Gestuvo, 337 F.Supp. at

1102 ("Gestuvo had a right to believe that the Service intended its [approval of the

labor certification] to be acted upon").

An individual's reliance interest in her own eligibility determination

is so

strong that that it cannot be defeated even where the decision was issued under the

government's

own mistaken view of the law. Watkins, 875 F.2d 699 (strong

reliance interest in eligibility

determination

to re-enlist even where the

determination

is inconsistent with law); Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872 (prisoner had

right to believe that he was eligible for parole when he was repeatedly told he was

41

eligible, even thought statute forbid parole); Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9 th

Cir. 1997)(prisoner

issued eligibility determination

indicating possibility for early

release had reliance interest in that determination

even if it was based on an

potentially

erroneous reading of law).

Indeed, in Cort, so strong was the

expectation created by the Bureau's eligibility determination,

that this Court

rejected the government's

assert{on that it should be permitted to revoke it as-a

mistake issued on an erroneous interpretation of the law. Cort, 113 F.3d at 10851086. This Court was "unwilling to apply so novel a principle of law," which it

characterized as "confusing" and '.'unique." Id. at 1085-1086.

6.

The Plaintiffs Were Unaware That Their Investments

Did

Not Comply With The Immigrant Investor Law

The Plaintiffs fully and justifiably believed that that their investments

complied with the law. [ER 57; _l 87]. The averment of good faith compliance is

further buttressed by the very fact that the INS officially sanctioned them when

they approved the 1-526 application.

Watkins, 875 F.2d at 71 l(A_rmy's repeated

re-enlistment

of un-enlistable

service man makes it impossible to charge the

individuals with knowledge that his enlistment did not comply with the law), citing

Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872 (government's

active misadvice to prisoner regarding his

42

eligibility for parole prevented court with charging the prisoner with even

constructive knowledge of the proper statute in question). _°

7.

The Plaintiffs' Actually Relied On Their Approved

Petitions To Their Detriment

1-526

It is also clear that the Plaintiffs' actually relied to their detriment on the

INS' approval of their investment plan. [ER 56-57; ¶ 86, 87]. As discussed above, .the Plaintiffs have sufficiently averred sufficient hardship flowing from the re-

adjudication

of their investment precedent decisions. They are now subject to

deportation, potential bars to re-entry, being uprooted from their new communities

and lives, and the loss of their significant investment. Johnson, 682 F.2d at 873

(detrimental

reliance on parole decision where there is successful reintegration

with family and a new business has been established); Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199,

1.205 (9 th Cir. 1981)(deportation);Wharton,

514 F.2d at 412 (loss of family farm).

These harmful effects all,could have easily been avoided had the INS

respected the settled expectations

it created in a relatively small number of

previously approved cases, had it honored its punic and private assurances to

l0 This reliance is also based on thousands of adjudications,

general counsel

memorandum,

[ER 59, 60-61; _[ 94, 96], and representations

of INS. [ER 59; ¶ 88];

[ER 149]("I advised counsel for [the partnerships]

that [rulemaking]

was our

intended course."). See Microcomputer

Technology Institute v. Riley, 139 F.3d

1044, 1051 (5 th Cir. 1998)(regulated

entity could "reasonably rely" on statement in

a General Counsel memo that any changes to policy would be made by prospectiw_

regulations);

See also McDonald

v. Watt, 653 F.2d 1035, 1044-1045 (5 th Cir.

1981)(rule not applied retroactively

because it was reasonable to rely on a four

year agency practice following a particular interpretation).

:

43

make any changes in criteria through a public and participatory process, or had it

not acted carelessly in placing its official imprimatur of approval on petitions and

investments it would later disavow. Indeed, the immigrant investors would never

have uprooted their families from their lives to immigrate, only to be expelled

more than five years later. [ER 57; ¶87]

8.

R.L. Investment Is Not Applicable to the Plaintiffs' Estoppell

Claim

This Court's affirmance in R.L. Investment v. INS, 278 F.3d. 874 (9 th Cir.

2001), adopting 86 F.Supp.2d 1014 (D. Haw. 2000) does not control this case.

There, the district court determined that a prospective immigrant investor could not

estop the INS based simply on the evidence of four other approved petitions. R.L.

Investment, 86 F.Supp.2d at 1027. Furthermore, the district court determined that

there was little injustice, where the individual's

investment remained in escrow

pending the approval and where the individual could take that money and re-apply. Id. This case is notably different. Here, as discussed above, the Plaintiffs may

justifiably rely on their own 1-526 approvals.

Gestuvo, 337 F.Supp. at 1102;

Watkins, 875 F.2d 699; Johns'on, 682 F.2d at 872; Cort, 113 F.3d 1081; Izumii 21 I

& N Dec. at 197("only way to obtain a determination on eligibility for immigrant-

investor classification

is to file a petition").

Moreover, the degree of injustice is

notably greater here, where the Plaintiffs are not able to simply reapply or continue

44

with their life in their native country, as in R.L. Investment.

They have uprooted

their lives in reliance on the INS' approval and now they are subject to expulsionl

IV. THE DEFENDANT

VIOLATED

THE

APA'S

NOTICE

AND

COMMENT PRECEDENT

REQUIREMENT

DECISIONS

AND

BY PROMULGATING

APPLYING

THEM

THE TO RE-

ADJUDICATE

THE PLAINTIFFS'

1-829 PETITIONS

The criteria announced in the precedent decisions - particularly as applied to

individuals with approved 1-526 petitions - violates the APA's notice andcomment

requirement

because: (1) the criteria constitute rules of general prospective

application which upset settled expectations;

(2) the new criteria amend or add

additional elements to the regulations and statute; and (3) the criteria represent changes to a long-standing practice or policy.

A.

Notice and Comment

is Required Where Rules Announced

in

Adjudications

Unsettle Legitimate Reliance Interests

As this Court held in Paffv. HUD, 88 F.3d 739 (9 th Cir. 1996), an agency

may not announce new rules in adjudications "where the new standard, adopted by adjudication, departs radically from the agency's previous interpretation of the law,

where the public has relied substantially

and in good faith onthe previous

interpretation, where fines or damages are involved, and where the new standard is

very broad and general in scope and prospective in application." PfaJf 88 F.3d at 748.

45

In Pfaff this Court invalidated a new rule that HUD had announced by

adjudication because the rule was found to be broad, general, and prospective in

application,

and because it was inconsistent

with and departed abruptly from

HUD's previous interpretations.

Pfqff, 88 F.3d 739. The Court was especially.

troubled in Pfaff that HUD, like the INS here, had made "inconsistent

and

misleading representations

to those regulated . . . and, in so doing, has led them

down the garden path." Id. at 747. The Court reasoned:

Adjudication

is best suited to incremental developments

to the law,

rather than great leaps forward.

The APA contains numerous

mechanisms, such as the notice and comment rulemaking procedure,

by which the public is given notice of proposed changes before they

occur.

For this reason, the Supreme Court has concluded that

"rulemaking is generally abetter, fairer, and more effective method"

of announcing a new rule than ad hoc adjudication.'

Id. at 748 (citations omitted).

The Plaintiffs' challenge in this case fits squarely within this line of cases

represented by: Pfaff 88 F.3d 748; .Ford Motor Co, 673 F.2d at 1009-10; gesler,

37 F.3d at 449; Patel, 638 F.2d at 1203-05; Ruangswang,

591 F.2d at 44. Indeed,

these cases are on point and indistinguishable.

They stand for the proposition,

applicable here, that where an individual conforms his conduct to a given

regulation or statute, an agency may not subsequently in an adjudication, without

prior notice, unsettle a legitimate expectation that the individuals have based on

their good faith attempt to comply with the legislative rule. This is especially truce

46

where agency interpretations are conflicting and would cause hardship or burden.

Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d at 1205. :

1.

The Criteria Announced

In The Precedent Decisions Depart

Radically From The Agency's Previous Application

Of The

Immigrant Investor Law To The Plaintiffs 1-526 Approvals

The new criteria announc'ed in the precedent decisions represent a radical

departure from its previous application of the law in the im_nigrant investor's 1-526

adjudications.

[ER 63-70; _ 104, 105]. The INS, operating under its standards

prior to the precedent decisions, approved each of the Plaintiffs'

similarly

structured investments in more than 200 different 1-526 petitions. [ER 59; _ 941].

Then, in evaluating these same investments

again, the defendant has begun

denying standards

the Plaintiffs' 1-829 that were announced

petitions, i

claiming

they failed to comply with the

for the first time in the precedent decisions. Pfqff,

88 F.3d at 748 ("compelling

business necessity" rule departs abruptly from

preexisting

"reasonableness

stafldard"); see, also, Oil, Che)nical and Atomic

Workers v. NLRB, 842 F.2d 114!, 1144-1145 (9 th Cir. 1988)(abrupt departure to

shift a party's burden of proof); see also Guy Atkinson, 195 F.2d at 149 (NLRB

could not reverse its "administrative

choice" of not assuming its jurisdiction over a

particular industry retroactively).

2.

The Immigrant

Investors'

1-526 Approvals

Give Rise To A

Settled Interest In The Application

Of The Prior Criteria

47

Each of the immigrant investors have a settled interest in their eligibility for

permanent residence based on their authoritative 1-526 approval. Cort v. Crabtree,

113 F.3d 1081; Watkins, 875 F.2d 699; Johnson, 682 F.2d at:872. Indeed, each of

these cases reflects the strong reliance that one has in their own agency @proval.

Here, the Plaintiffs

i
are asserting

a settled expectanon

based first and

foremost upon their own individually and preViously approved investment ]51ans (l-
r.
526). [ER 13; ¶ 33]. The precedent decisions themselves support the proposition
that the Plaintiffs have a vested reliance interest in that decision. The Associate

Commissioner

in Izumii has already indicated that an approved 1-526 petition gives

rise to "reasonable"

and "justifiable" reliance.

Izumii, I & N Dec. at 197. The

Associate Commissioner

plainly stated, "it is basic immigration law that the only

way to obtain a determination

on eligibility for immigrant-investor

classification is

to file a petition with the Service.Y Id., citing 8 C.F.R. 204.6(a), which refers to the

filing of an 1-526 petition along with all required documentation.

It is thus basic

immigration law that the INS' approval of the immigrant investors' 1-526 petitions

authoritatively

indicated that their investments - at least as to them - gave rise to a

reasonable expectation of their continued eligibility under the Immigrant Investor

Law.

o

The New Criteria Would Subject the Immigrant

Investors

To Substantial Harm

48

It is without question that the immigrant investors are subject to substantial harm if the precedent decisions are applied to terminate their status. Threats of

deportation have consistently been held by this Court as sufficient harm to prevent the application of questionably applicable law. In light of the radical shift in policy and clear hardship, this Court should be guided by its decision in Patel, 638 F.2d

1199. In that case, this Court held that it was an abuse of discretion to apply a

particular criterion announced in adjudication where "the INS had been sending

aliens confusing signals" and the application would work "substantial hardship"

(i.e. deportation).

Id. at 1205; Maceren, 509 F.2d at 940 ("The unfair prejudice to

the holder of the previously issued labor certificate is manifest . . . Retroactive:

application

of § 60.5(b) would: make deportation

a certainty for those, like

Maceren, who are unable to obtain revalidation of their certificates due to a change:

in labor conditions.")

4.

The Precedent Decisions Are Broad and General In Scope

and Prospective In Application

It is clear from both the manner in which the INS rules were promulgated in

the precedent decisions, and the nature of the rules announced that they were to be

general and prospective rules that sought to circumvent the APA. Indeed, the INS

itself believed that notice and comment was required, but rather engineered a novel

process to circumvent the APA by, issuing precedent decisions.

49

The INS initially intended to publish regulations in "final form." [ER 58; ¶ 92]. _ Instead of publishing the regulations and giving the public an opportunity to comment, they put all matters on hold until the General Counsel could, issue a memorandum. [ER 58-59; ¶ 92-93]. Once the General Counsel issued .the memorandum, INSheadquarter s established a process where the issues raised in the memorandum would be funneled to the Administrative Appeals Office by having the regional directors certify cases to it. [ER 62; 7100]. It is important to note that the Administrative Appeals Office is not an independent body and rarely issues "precedent decisions." The Administrative Appeals Office then chose the certified cases that could be used to develop the rules established in the four
1
precedent decisions. [ER 62; ¶ 101]. Different branches of the INS, including tile General Counsel's office that had originated the December 17, 1997 memorandum reviewed and approved the draft and were involved in the decision making process concerning the precedent decisions. [ER 62; ¶ 101].
This process is hardly the type of "exception" through "adjudication" to public rulemaking envisioned in lcases such as NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974). Here, there was not an "adjudication" of a case in a quasi-judicial
" 60 Fed. Reg. at 29772; [ER 149] ("In 1996, I believed that the appropriate course for resolving lingering questions about this arrangement would be to publish a regulation to clearly establish our.requirements. I advised counsel for AIS that that was our intended course... We have not published a rule or issued a notice to the contrary").
5O

or judicial sense, but rather a pre-arranged process where the agency channeled

certain cases to the Administrative

Appeals Office which itself did not decide the

cases but rather accepted and obtained the "okay" from various departments of

INS including the General Counsel

before the Associate Commissioner

for

Examinations

issued the decision. Such conduct eviscerates the purpose of 'the

APA's notice and comment provisions. Cf Shell Offshore v. Babbitt, 238 F.3d 622, 628 (5 th Cir. 2001)("it is similarly clear ithat Interior's new policy was the basis tbr

the adjudication, rather than the i_acts of the.particular adjudication causing Interior

to modify or re-interpret its rule. Interior did not apply a general regulation to the

specific facts of Shell's case. Rather, it established a new policy and then applied

that new policy to several OCS producers, including Shell.").

B.

Plaintiffs' APA Claims Are Not Inconsistent With Guernsey, Chief

Probation Officers, and R.L. Investment

In contrast to the district court's assessment, the Plaintiffs' APA claims are

not inconsistent with either Chief Probation Officer v. Shalala, 118 F.3d 1327 (9 th

Cir. 1997), Guernsey v. Shalala, 514 U.S. 87, 115 S.Ct. 1232 (1995), or R.L. Investment.

The new criteria announced in the precedent decisions d___aomo end and add to the controlling regulations and statute, and thus fall squarely within Guernsey's

line of cases. In holding that Izumii was consistent with the regulations, the district court simply addressed one aspect of the Izumii holding: the new definition of

51

"'invest' (or 'contribution of capital')." [ER 134]. The district court did not examine substantive changes such as the new rule that an investor may qualify only if he joins at the paper formation of the partnership. Furthermore, the district

court's examined the consistency of the new definition of "investment" in the

context 8 C.F.R. § 204.6 (I-526 proceedings), and not the provision applicable to the Plaintiffs in this case, 8 C.F.R. § 216.6 (I-829 proceedings). [ER 134].
The district court's failure to examine the criteria in the context of the

regulation's 1-829 proceedings is a fatal flaw. Unlike R.L. Investment, on which the district court relies, the immigrant investors in this case are petitioning to remove

the conditions of their residency, and not seeking initial classification.

As

discussed below, the narrow scope of inquiry required by the statute and

regulations during the 1-829 proceedings do not permit a reexamination of

threshold issues settled at the 1-526 stage, such as the nature and structure of the

investment. Thus, examining the nature and structure of the investment introduces

a new element of proof into the ii-829 proceedings, which is not permitted by the regulations or statute.
The district court also erred in relying on Chief Probation Officer and

Guernsey to dismiss Plaintiffs I claim that the precedent decisions' radical departure from longstanding practice, including the Plaintiffs' own approvals, gave

rise to notice and comment. Neither Chief Probation Officer, Guernsey, nor R.L.

52

Investment foreclose the need for notice and comment in a context other than

where a rule amends a regulation or a.statute. For example, in Guernsey, the Supreme Court never addressed this question. Its focus on whether an interpretive

rule contradicts a regulation is exclusively a product of the questio n presented in that case, and it simply cannot be read to preclude the use of notice and comment in other contexts.

In contrast to Guernsey, Chief Probation Officer and R.L. Investment do

address the question of whether notice and comment is required where a new

interpretation conflicts with a prior policy evidenced by agency approvals. The

rejection of notice and comment in both of these cases however is easily explained

by their distinct factual backgrounds.

In Chief Probation Officer, this Court

expressly characterized the policy as "short lived." 118 F.3d at 1334. Furthermore,

it pointed out that the agency's past practice could never be legislative because ihe

operative regulation precluded a regulated entity from relying on previously

approved plans. Id. at 1334-1335. ("future 'interpretations' may alter whether plans

continue to be approved"). This case presents a very different factual scenario.

Here, the regulatory framework envisions reliance once there is an approved 1-526

petition. This is because the INS is only supposed to examine whether the

53

investment was sustained and whether the information in the petition is "true. ''12

This important distinction likewise takes this case outside of the scope of R.L.

Investment. Indeed, in that case the immigrant investor was still at the initial stage

where the INS had very broad authority to question the nature and scope of the

investment. Moreover, in contrast to this case, the immigrant investor supported

his assertion of policy with only.four other approvals which was easily dismissed

as a "short lived." R.L. Investment, 86 F.Supp.2d at 1025-26. Cf [ER 61, 63; ¶¶

97, 104](" .... until 1997, not a single immigrant investor petition..,

was ever

denied ... because of the use of one of the above stated program structures").
C. The Criteria Announced in the Precedent Decisions And Their Application to the Plaintiffs Amend the Statute And Regulations

The INS' amended the Immigrant Investor Law in two respects. First, the

INS has made legislative changes to eligibility criteria for investments. Second,

the INS has expanded the narrow scope of inquiry mandated by the statute and

12The Supreme Court has recognized that an administrative.adjudication

may have

preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings involving the same parties. See United

States v. Utah Construction and Mining, 384 U.S. 394, 421-422, 86 S.Ct. 1545,

1559, 1560, 16 L.Ed.2d (1966);.see also Safir v. Gibson, 432 F.2d 137, 142-143

(2 nd Cir. 1970)(Friendly, J.)(applying principles of resjudicata to both-issues of

fact and law decided by one agency in a subsequent administrative proceedings

before another agency). In light _f the mutuality of parties, the Defendant should

be collaterally estopped from re-adjudicating the propriety of the Plaintiffs'

investments when adjudicating the 1-829 petition. Indeed, the question of whether

the Plaintiffs' investments comply with the requirements of the Immigrant Investor

Law is adjudicated with the 1-526 petition and the issue of whether that approved

investment is sustained is the only matter legitimately considered in the 1-829. Cf

8 C.F.R. § 204.60) with 8 C.F.R. 216.6(a)(4), (c).

54

regulations that is to be undertaken in the adjudication of the 1-829 petitions to

include re-adjudication of the underlying investment.

1. The INS Has Legislatively Amended The Regulations And Created New Requirements For Investments To Qualify Under The Law

Even under Guernsey, the changes announced in the precedent decisions

constitute legislative rulemaking because they add to, alter, amend or are inconsistent with either the regulations or the governing statute.

The current regulations recognize that a commercial enterprise includes a

"partnership" (whether limited or general) and excludes only a "noncommercial

activity." 8 C.F.R. §204.6 (e). The regulations provide that multiple investors may be considered to establish a new commercial enterprise "provided each petitioning

investor has invested or is actively in the process of investing the required amount" [and that the investment] "results in the creation of at least ten full-time positions

for qualifying employees." 8 C.F.R. §204.6(g)(1). They further recognize that "duties normally granted to limited partners under the Uniform Limited Partnership Act" will be considered sufficient to establish tl_at the person is

engaged in the management of the enterprise. 8 C.F.R. §204.6(j)(5)(iii). Finally,

the regulations provide that the.establishment

of a new commercial enterprise

includes the "creation of an original business." 8 C.F.R. §204.6 (h).

55

There is no requirement in any of these regulations that a limited partner

would be ineligible if they became limited partners after the partnership was

• formed. Nor is the statute to the contrary. INA §203(b)(5)(A),

8 U.S.C.

§l153(b)(5)(A).

Here, the INS ihas simply legislated a new requirement that a

person must not only be a limited partner, who is involved in the creation of. an

original business and who performs all the duties normally performed under the

ULPA, but he must also have been a partner when the partnership was formed.

This simply adds a new requirement not permissible under the APA without notice

and comment rulemaking. Patel V. INS 638 F.2d 1199 (9 th Cir. I980); Ruangswang

v. INS, 591 F.2d 39 (9 th Cir. 1978). The INS also adds new _'equirements not found in, and contrary to, the

governing statute and regulations by prohibiting redemption agreements. The statute's focus is on the initial investment, the amount of capital required, and the

number of jobs created. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5) INA §203(b)(5). The statute only

requires the person to maintain th'e investment for a two year period after obtaining

his conditional residency. The regulations, likewise, do not address redemption

agreements. The regulation properly focuses on whether the purpose is investing or

simply whether there is an intent to invest. 8 C.F.R. §204.60)(2). The investor

under the regulation must have the "present commitment" to invest. The regulations do not bar a person who has the present intent to invest from pulling

56

out his investment as soon as he obtains his permanent residency and making an agreement to that effect. Indeedl even INS recognizes the validity of redemption agreements. However, they now seek to restrict such agreements by denying status to an investor who enters into the redemption agreement before obtaining permanent residency. This simply adds a new condition-to the statute and regulations which currently do not bar divestiture before obtaining residency.
The refusal to permit guaranteed returns also constitutes legislative rulemaking requiring notice and comment. Neither the statute, nor the regulations prohibit guaranteed returns. The statute only requires that the person "has invested or is actively in the process of investing" the required amount of capital. INA §203(b)(5)(C). Similarly, the regulation requires only "evidence that the alien invested or was actively in the process of investing the required capital." 8 C.F.R.§216.6(a)(4)(ii). The determination to add this requirement indicates what a sharp departure this rule is from the statute and regulations which properly emphasize the initial investment and job creation.
2. The INS has amended the narrow scope of inquiry that is to be undertaken in the adjudication of an 1-829 petition
It is clear that the INS is amending the regulations by broadening the scope of inquiry to be undertaken during the I_829 adjudication. Both the statute and the regulations provide for a very narrow scope of inquiry during the 1-829 proceeding.
57

This is because the INS carefully assesses and adjudicates all relevant features of

the immigrant investors' business and investment plans at the I:526 proceeding. The regulatory provisions governing the adjudication of the 1-526 petition
require that the evidence submitted must show that "the alien has invested or is

actively in the process of investing lawfully obtained capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States which will create full-time jobs for not fewer than

10 qualifying employees."

8 C.F.R § 204.60). When an immigrant investor

receives an 1-526 approval, the INS must conclude based on a review of the

exhaustive evidence required that the structure and nature of his business and

investment plan: (a) met the definition of an active investment; (b) satisfied the

capital requirement; (c) met the definition of a new commercial enterprise; and (d)

would satisfy the job requirement] 3

The 1-829 adjudication does not proceed ab initio, and is not designed to second guess the first adjudication. It is intended simply to determine if the

investor "in good faith, substantially" "maintained" and "sustained" the qualifying

investment throughout the alien's conditional residence.

8 U.S.C. §

_3During the initial process the INS is expected to review and approve extensive

documentation, inter alia: (a) thebusiness organization document or proof that the

capital contribution will transform an existing business into a new business, 8

C.F.R § 204.6(j)(1)(i); (b) bank statements and promissory notes, 8 C.F.R. §

204.6(j)(2)(i)-(v),

to reflect the active nature of the investment; and (c) the

partnership agreement showing that the individual has the rights and duties

normally accorded to limited partners under the Uniform LimitedPartnership

act, 8

C.F.R. § 204.60)(5).

58

1186b(d)(1)(C), INA §216A(d)(1)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 216(c)(1)(iii). The narrow scope

of the INS inquiry is further !apparent when comparing it to the far broader

authority that the INS has in the first two years to reexamine the investment for any basis under the act in rescission proceedings - such authority is notably not granted

in the 1-829 proceedings, cf 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(b)(1)(A)-(C), INA § 216A(b)(1)(A)-

(C) with 1186b(d)(1)(A)-(C),

INA 216A(d)(1)(A)-(C),

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c).

The INS' authority in these proceedings is simply to assess whether the

evidence determining that it was sustained and maintained in good faith is "true." If the facts in the petition are deemed to be "tree," the INS is supposed to remove

the conditions. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(3)(B), INA § 216A(3)(B).

The distinct documentation requirements further reflect the narrow and pro

forma nature of the proceeding.

For example, suggested evidence for the

formation of the commercial enterprise is simply federal income tax returns, which

would reflect an on going business. 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(i). This is in marked

contrast to the extensive documentation, such as the partnership agreement, that is

required for the initial approval, which is intended to assess the propriety and

structure. 8 C.F.R § 204.6(j)(1)(i).

The INS in applying the precedent decision to the immigrant investors has in

violation of the statute and regulations, stepped outside of the intended narrow

scope of inquiry at the 1-829 stage. The INS' denial of Plaintiff Chiang's petition

59

arose because he joined the partnership after its paper formation [ER 103], reassessed the fair market value of his initial capital contribution [ER 104] and the terms of his promissory note did not constitute an "at risk" investment. [ER 105,107]. The INS' reassessment of the basic nature of these features went well beyond the flexible assessment of whether he "in good faith, substantially" "sustained" his investment or Whether the documents he submitted were "true."

Thus, the INS has amended its rules to circumvent the two year limit on rescinding

1-526 approvals and has fundamentally broadened the scope of the 1-829

proceedings to permit an ultra vires re-examination of the issues that are supposed

to be settled in the 1-526 adjudication. Such an amendment compels notice and

comment rulemaking.

D. The INS Is Required To Engage In Rulemaking Contravenes a Long Standing Practice or Policy

When It

The district court erred in determining that the INS was not required to

engage in notice and comment because the precedent decisions conflicted with a

longstanding practice and policy' of the INS. Both the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth

Circuit have expressly held that an agency may not violate a longstanding interpretive policy without engaging in notice and comment. Alaska Professional

Hunters Ass'n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Shell Offshore Inc. v.

Babbitt, 238 F.3d 622 (5 th Cir. 2001). This Court's jurisprudence is also consistent

with this line of cases. While it has not directly confronted this issue, it has ruled

60

/

in a similar fashion that interpretive rules may give rise to notice and comment in

light of the nature of the rule announced and where certain equitable and policy

factors are present. Pfaff 88 F.3d at 748.

Applying Shell to the instant case, it is clear that notice and comment is

required. Shell involved an agency practice spanning six years (1988-93) whereby,

the Department of Interior permitted off-shore oil producers to utilize a Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) tariff rate to calculate their royalty

payments. Shell, 238 F.3d at 624-625. At some point in 1993, the agency

questioned

whether FERC had jurisdiction

to approve the tariff rate, and thus

instituted a new policy requiring the oil producers to petitions FERC for

jurisdiction prior to using a FERC tariff rate to calculate royalties (previously a rate

was valid when filed unless the/e was a protest). Id. The oil producers challenged

this new "jurisdiction petition policy" violated notice and comment. Id.

The Fifth Circuit noted that "Interior's new practice may be a reasonable

change in its oversight practices' and procedures."

Id. at 230: However, the court

found that, "it places a new and substantial requirement on many OCS lessees, was

a significant departure from long established and consistent past practice." Id. As

such, the policy change "should have been submitted for notice and comment

before adoption." Id.

61

Plaintiffs, in this case, have alleged that the INS over a seven-year course of consistently adjudicating petitions and issuing general counsel memoranda or other

authoritative statements established a series of rules and criteria for approving Immigrant Investor petitions under the Immigrant Investor Law [ER 60-61, 63-70; ¶¶ 96, 104]. They have likewise alleged that the precedent decisions contradicted

these prior rules, and that they essentially place new and substantial requirements

on the immigrant investors [ER 63-70; ¶ 104]. Thus, when applying the rule of
i

Shell and Alaska Professional

Hunters to this case, it is clear that notice and

comment rule making was required.

V.

THE DISTRICT

COURT ERRED IN DENYING INJUNCTIVE

AND

DECLARATORY

RELIEF

TO THE SIX DISMISSED

NAMED

PLAINTIFFS

BASED ON THEIR RETROACTIVITY

CLAIMS

The district court erred in denying the immigrant investors and putative class

members' request for injunctive and declaratory relief. As the district court

properly determined,

the Plaintiffs' complaint

has alleged that the INS'

promulgation

of the precedent

decisions

and application

to the immigrant

investor's 1-829 petitions would constitute a retroactive application of law. [ER

139]. As such, the district court held that the application

of this Court's

retroactivity analysis should be applied. Montgomery Ward, 691 F.2d 1322.

The district court's errors with respect to ripeness has eliminated from the

purview of the court hundreds of Plaintiffs with ripe claims who are prevented

,62

from obtaining injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the unwarranted

retroactive application of law. Indeed, without question, this Court's jurisprudence

presumptively disfavors an agency's attempt to retroactively apply a new standard of law. George v. Camacho, 119 F.3d 1393, 1396-1397 (9 th Cir. 1997)(en

banc)("considerations

of fairness.., presumptively prohibit retroactive application

of the law"); Guy Atkinson, 195 F.2d at 149 ("The inequity of such an impact of

retroactive policy making . . . is the sort of thing our law abhors."). This is so

particularly where the harm will devastate hundreds of immigrant investors and

their families who uprooted their lives to invest in our economy at the formal

invitation of the INS - and who are now subject to expulsion simply because the
INS has changed its mind. As Judge Pregerson stated in Gestuvo,
J
People like Gestuvo rely on the Service to reach accurate rulings on which they can base theirlplans. It was the Service that led Gestuvo down the path towards permanent residence. Having done so, it should not have shoved him into a ditch along the way. Its action was improper.

337 F.Supp. at 1103.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE,

the Plaintiffs/Appellants

respectfully request that this

Honorable Court reverse in part the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to reinstate all named individual Plaintiffs and to permit them to seek

63

class wide injunctive and declaratory relief on their APA, retroactivity, and estoppel claims.

DATE: June 13, 2002

i

• ,-,,, _.! / ,

.

Respectmlly,suonntted,

....•

i
i

,

-_ ,,'..L_.'//
_IU

-Ira LK .,_an, Esq. (State Bar No.: 71563) Kur;_bgn';:Kurzban, Weinger &Tetzeli PA

i65/()7SW 27 'h Avenue, 2 "4 floor

61.: 305.444_0060; Fax. 305.444.3503
Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. (State Bar No.: 80778) Van Der Hout, & Brigagliano 1180Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel. (415) 981-3000; Fax. (415) 981-3003

64

STATEMENT OF RELATED CAS ES Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6, the Plaintiffs/Appellants

state that

there

65

CERTIFICATE

OF COMPLIANCE

TO FED. R. APP. 32(A)(7)(C)

CIRCUIT RULE 32-1 FOR CASE NUMBER 00-15627

AND

I certify that: (check appropriate option(s)) 1. Pursuant to Fe& R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C)
attached opening/answering/reply/cross-appeal

and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the brief is

X Proportionately

spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains

13996 words (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in

cross-appeals

must not exceed 14, 000 words; reply briefs must not exceed

7, 000 words),

or is

__ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer Characters per inch and contains __ words

or lines of text (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed

in cross-appeals

must not exceed 14, 000 words or 1300 lines of text; reply

briefs must not exceed 7, 000 words or 650 lines of text).

2. The attached brief is not subject to the type-volume limitations of Fed. R.

App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because This brief complies with Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a)(1)-(7) and is a principal
brief of no more than 30 pages or a reply brief of no more than 15 pages; This brief complies with a page or size volume limitation established by

separate court order dated

and is

__ Proportionately

spaced, has a typeface

contains

words,

of 14 points or more and

or is

__ Monospaced, has: 10.5 or fewer characters

__ pages or __ words or

lines of text.

per inch and contains

3. Briefs in Capital Cases. __ This brief is being filed in a capital case pursuant
limitations set forth at Circuit Rule 32-4 and is

to the type-volume

__ Proportionately

spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains

words (opening, answering and the second and third briefs

filed in cross-appeals

must not exceed 21,000 words; reply briefs must

not exceed 9,800 words),

or is

66

__ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains

words

or lines of text (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed

in cross-appeals must not exceed 75 pages or 1950 lines of text; reply briefs

must not exceed 35 pages or 910 lines of text).

° Amicus Briefs. __ Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(d) and 9 th Cir. R. 32-1, the attached amicus brief is proportionally Spaced; has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 7000 words Or less,

or is

__ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains not more than either 7000 words or 650 lines of text,
or is
I
__ Not subject to the type-volume l_,_tions because it is an amicus brief of no more than 15 pages and compli_ ,_ith Fed. R..App. P. 32(a)(1)(5).

June 13, 2002 Date
•

__,/_'/ Ira J.

Esquire

'

7

•

•

Kur_ban, Kurzban, Wemger & Tetzeh, P.A.

2650 S.W. 27 th Avenue, 2 nd Floor

Miami, Florida 33133

Tel. (305) 444-0060

Fax. (305) 444-3503

67

8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5), |NA § 203(b)(5)
(5) Employment creation
(A) In general
Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 7.1 percent of such worldwide level, to qualified immigrants seeking to enter the United States for the purpose of engaging .in a new commercial enterprise--
(i) which the alien has established ,
(ii) in which such alien has invested (after November 29, 1990) or, is actively in the process of investing, capital in an amount not less than the amount specified in subparagraph (C), and
(iii) which will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States (other than the immigrant and the immigrant's spouse, sons, or daughters).
(B) Set-aside for targeted employment areas
(i) In general
Not less than 3,000 of the visas made available under this paragraph in each fiscal year shall be reserved for qualified immigrants who establish a new commercial enterprise described in subparagraph (A) which will create employment in a targeted employment area.
(ii) Targeted employment area defined
In this paragraph, the term "targeted employment area" means, at the time of the investment, a rural area or an area Which has experienced high unemployment (of at least 150 percent of the national average rate).
(iii) Rural area defined
In this paragraph, the term "rural area" means any area ot.h,er than an area within

ADDENDUM

68

1_ -

a metropolitan statistical area or within the outer boundaryof any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more (based on the most recent decennial census of the United States).

(C) Amount of capital required

(i) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph, the amount of capital

required under subparagraph (A) shall be $1,000,000. The Attorney General, in

consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of State, may from time

to time prescribe regulations increasing the dollar amount

specified under the

previous sentence.

(ii) Adjustment for targeted employment areas

The Attorney General may, in the case of investment made in a targeted employment area, specify an amount of capital required under subparagraph (A) that is less than (but not less than 1/2 of) the amount specified in clause (i).

(iii) Adjustment for high emPloyment areas
In the case of an investment made in a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of the investment--

(I) is not a targeted employment area, and

(II) is an area with an unemployment average unemployment rate,

rate significantly below the national

the Attorney General may specify an amount subparagraph (A) that is greater:than (but not greater specified in clause (i).

of capital required under than 3 times) the amount

ADDENDUM

69

8 U.S.C. § 1186b, INA § 216A
§ 1186b. Conditional permanent resident status for certain alien entrepreneurs, spouses, and children
(a) In general
(1) Conditional basis for status
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an alien entrepreneur (as defined in subsection (f)(1) of this section), alien spouse, and alien child (as defined in subsection (0(2) of this section) shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section..
(2) Notice of requirements
(A) At time of obtaining permanent residence
At the time an alien entrepreneur, alien spouse, or alien child obtains permanent resident status on a conditional basis under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall provide for notice to such an entrepreneur, spouse, or child respecting the provisions of this section and the requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this section to have the conditional basis of such status removed.
(B) At time of required petition
In addition, the Attorney General shall attempt to provide notice to such an entrepreneur, spouse, or child, at or about the beginning of the 90-day period described in subsection (d)(2)(A):of this section, of the requirements of subsection (c)(1) of this section.
(C) Effect of failure to provide notice
The failure of the Attorney General to provide a notice under this paragraph shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of this section with respect to such an entrepreneur, spouse, or child.
(b) Termination of status if finding that qualifying entrepreneurship improper

ADDENDUM

70

(1) In general
In the case of an alien entrepreneur with permanent resident status on a conditional basis under subsection (a) of this section, if the Attorney General determines, before the second anniversary of the alien's obtaining the status of lawful admission for permanent residence, that--
(A) the establishment of the commercial enterprise was intended solely as a means of evading the immigratio n laws of the United States,
(B)(i) a commercial enterprise was not established by the alien,
(ii) the alien did not invest or was not actively in the process of investing the requisite capital; or
(iii) the alien was not sustaining the actions described in clause (i) or (ii) throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States, or
(C) the alien was otherwise not conforming to the requirements of section 1153(b)(5) of this title,
then the Attorney General shall.so notify the alien involved and, subject to paragraph (2), shall terminate the permanent resident status of the alien (and the alien spouseand alien child) involved as of the date of the determination.
(2) Hearing in removal proceeding
Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated under paragraph (1) may request a review of such determination in a proceeding to remove the alien. In such proceeding, the burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a condition described in paragraph (1) is met.
(c) Requirements of timely petition and interview for removal of condition
(1) In general

In order for the conditional basis established under subsection (a) of this section

ADDENDUM

71

for an alien entrepreneur, alien spouse, or alien child to be removed--
(A) the alien entrepreneur mustsubmit to the Attorney General, during the period described in subsection (d)(2) of this section, a petition which requests the removal of such conditional basis and which states, under penalty of perjury, the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1) of this section, and
(B) in accordance with subsection (d)(3) of this section, the alien entrepreneur must appear for a personal interview before an officer or employee of the Service respecting the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1) of this section.
(2) Termination of permanent resident status for failure to file petition or have personal interview
(A) In general
In the case of an alien with pehnanent resident status on a conditional basis under subsection (a) of this section, if--
(i) no petition is filed with respect to the alien in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)(A), or
(ii) unless there is good cause shown, the alien entrepreneur fails to appear at the interview described in paragraph (1)(B) (if required under subsection (d)(3) of this section),
the Attorney General shall terminate the permanent resident status of the alien (and the alien's spouse and children if it was obtained on a conditional basis under this section or section 1186a of this title) as of the second anniversary of the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence.
(B) Hearing in removal proceeding
In any removal proceeding with respect to an alien whose permanent resident status is terminated under subparagraph (A), the burden of proof shall be on the', alien to establish compliance with the conditions of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B).
(3) Determination after Petition and interview

ADDENDUM

72

(A) In general If--

0) a petition is filed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1)(A), and

(ii) the alien entrepreneur (1)(B),

appears at any interview described in paragraph

the Attorney General shall make a determination, within 90 days of the date of the such filing [FN1] or interview (whichever is later), as to whether the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1) of this section and alleged in the petition are true with respect to the qualifying commercial enterprise.

(B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable determination

If the Attorney General determines Attorney General shall so notify conditional basis of the alien's status alien's lawful admission for permanent

that such facts and information are true, the the alien involved and shall remove the effective as of the second anniversary of the
residence.

(C) Termination if adverse determination

If the Attorney General determines that such facts and information are not true, the Attorney General shall so notify the alien involved and, subject to subparagraph (D), shall terminate the permanent resident status of an alien entrepreneur, alien spouse, or alien child as of the date of the determination.

(D) Hearing in removal proceeding

Any alien whose permanent resident status is terminated under subparagraph (C) may request a review of such determination in a proceeding to remove the alien. In such proceeding, the burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the facts and information described in subsection (d)(1) of this section and alleged in the petition are not true with respect to the qualifying commercial enterprise.

(d) Details of petition and interview

ADDENDUM

73

(1) Contents of petition

Each petition under subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section shall contain facts and information demonstrating that--

(A) a commercial enterprise was established by the alien;

(B) the alien invested or was actively in the process of investing the requisite capital; and

(C) the alien sustained the actions described in subparagraphs throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States.

(A) and (B)

(2) Period for filing petition (A) 90-day period before second anniversary .

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the petition under subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section must be filed during the 90-day period before the second anniversary of the alien's lawful admission for permanent residence.

(B) Date petitions for good cause

Such a petition may be considered if filed after such date, but only if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General good cause and extenuating circumstances for failure to file the petition during the period described in subparagraph (A).

(C) Filing of petitions during removal

In the case of an alien who is the subject of removal to file a petition on a timely basis in accordance Attorney General may stay such removal proceedings filing of the petition under subparagraph (B).

hearings as a result of failure with subparagraph (A), the against an alien pending the

(3) Personal interview

The interview under subsection ic)(1)(B) of this section shall be conducted within 90 days after the date of submitting a petition under subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section and at a local office of the Service, designated by the Attorney General,

ADDENDUM

74

which is convenient to the parties involved. The Attorney General, in the Attorney

General's discretion,

may waive the deadline for such an interview or the

requirement for such an interview in such cases as may be appropriate.

(e) Treatment of period for purposes of naturalization

For purposes of subchapter III of this chapter, in the case of an alien who is in the

United section, admitted lawfully

States as a lawful permanent residenton

the alien shall be consid6red,to

:have:been

for permanent residence and to be-in

admitted to the United states for permanent

a conditional

basis under this

admitted as an alien lawfully

the United States as an alien

residence.

(f) Definitions In this section:

(1) The term "alien entrepreneur"

means an alien who obtains the status of an

alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (whether on a conditional basis or

otherwise) under section 1153(b)(5) of this title.

(2) The term "alien spouse" and the term "alien child" mean an alien who obtains the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (whether on a conditional basis or otherwise) by virtue of being the spouse or child, respectively, of an alien entrepreneur.

ADDENDUM

75

8 C.F.R. § 204.6 § 204.6 Petitions for employment creation aliens.

(a) General. A petition to classify an alien under section 203(b)(5) of the Act must be filed on Form I_526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur. The petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Before a petition is considered properly flied, the petition must be signed by the petitioner, and the. initial supporting documentation required by this section must be attached. Legible photocopies of supporting documents will ordinarily be acceptable for initial filing and fipproval. However, at the discretion of the director, original documents may be required.

(b) Jurisdiction.

The petition must be filed with the Service Center having

jurisdiction over the area in which the new commercial enterprise is or will be

principally doing business.

)
(c) Eligibility to file. A petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur may
only be filed by any alien on his ol: her own behalfi

(d) Priority date. The priority date of a petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur is the date the petition is properly filed with the Service or, if filed prior to the effective date of these regulations, the date the Form 1-526 was received at the appropriate Service Center.

(e) Definitions. As used in this section:

Capital means cash, equipment, inventory, other tangible property, cash equivalents, and indebtedness secured by assets owned by the alien entrepreneur, provided that the alien entrepreneur is personally and primarily liable and that the assets of the new commercial enterprise upon which the petition is based are not used to secure any of the indebtedness. All capital shall be valued at fair market value in United States dollars. Assets acquired, directly or indirectly, by unlawful means (such as criminal activities)shall not be considered capital for the purposes of section 203(b)(5) of the Act.

Commercial enterprise means any for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of lawful business including, but not limited to, a sole proprietorship, partnership (whether limited or' general), holding company, joint venture,

ADDENDUM

76

corporation, business trust, or other entity which may be publicly or privately owned. This definition includes a commercial enterprise consisting of a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, provided that each such subsidiary is engaged in a for-profit activity formed for the ongoing conduct of a lawful business. This definition shall not include a noncommercial activity such as owning and operating a personal residence.

Employee means an individual who provides services or labor for the new commercial enterprise and who receives wages or other remuneration directly from the new commercial enterprise. In the case of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, "employee" also means an individual Who provides services or labor in a job which has been created indirectly through investment in the new commercial enterprise. This definition shall not include independent contractors.
Full-time employment means employment of a qualifying employee by the new commercial enterprise in a position that requires a minimum of 35 working hours per week. In the case of the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, "full-time employment" also means employment of a qualifying employee in a position that has been created indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the Pilot Program that requires a minimum of 35 working hours per week. A job-sharing arrangement whereby two or more qualifying employees share a full-time position shall count as full-time employment provided the hourly requirement per week is met. This definitionshall not include combinations Of part-time positions even if, when combined, such positions meet the hourly requirement per week.

High employment area means a part of a metropolitan statistical area that at the time of investment:

(i) Is not a targeted employment area; and

(ii) Is an area with an unemployment unemployment rates.

rate significantly below the national average

Invest means to contribute capital. A contribution of capital in exchange for a note, bond, convertible debt, obligation, or any other debt arrangement between the alien entrepreneur and the new commercial enterprise does not constitute a contribution of capital for the purposes of this part.
New means established after November 29, 1990.

ADDENDUM

77

Qualifying employee means a United States citizen, a lawfully admitted permanent resident, or other immigrant lawfully authorized to be employed in the United States including, but not limited to, a conditional resident, a temporary resident, an asylee, a refugee, or an alien remaining in the United States under suspension of deportation. This definition does not include the alien entrepreneur, the alien entrepreneur's spouse, sons, or daughters, or any nonimmigrant alien. •

Regional with the improved investment.

center means any economic uniL public or private, which is involved promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital

Rural area means any area not within either a metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the Office of Management and Budget) or the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more.

Targeted employment area means an area which, at the time of investment, is a rural area or an area which has experienced unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate.
Troubled business means a business that has been in existence for at least two years, has incurred a net loss for accounting purposes (determined on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles) during the twelve- or twenty-four month period prior to the priority date on the alien entrepreneur's Form 1-526, and the loss for such period is at least equal to twenty percent of the troubled business's net worth prior to such loss. For purposes of determining whether or not the troubled business has been in existence for two years, successors in interest to the troubled business will be deemed to have been in existence for the same period of time as the business they succeeded.

(f) Required amounts of capital.

(1) General. a qualifying ($1,000,000).

Unless otherwise specified, the amount of capital necessary to make investment in the United States is one million United States dollars

(2) Targeted employment area. The amount of capital necessary to make a qualifying investment in a targeted employment area within the United States is five hundred thousand United States dollars ($500,000).

ADDENDUM

78

(3) High employment area. The amount

investment in a high employmefit area

section 203(b)(5)(C)(iii)

of the Act,

($1,000,000).

of capital necessary to make a qualifying within the United States, as defined in is one million United States dollars

(g) Multiple investors--

(1) General. The establishment of a new commercial enterprise may be used as the basis of a petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur by more than one investor, provided each petitioning investor has invested or is actively in the process of investing the required amount for the area in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business, and provided each individual investment results in the creation of at least ten full-time positions for qualifying employees. The establishment of a new commercial enterprise may be used as the basis of a petition for classification as an alien entrepreneur even though there are several owners of the enterprise, including persons who are not seeking classification under section 203(b)(5) of the Act and non-natural persons, both foreign and domestic, provided that the source(s) of all capital invested is identified and all invested capital has been derived by lawful means.

(2) Employment creation allocation. The total number of full-time positions created for qualifying employees shall be allocated solely to those alien entrepreneurs who have used the' establishment of the new commercial enterprise as the basis of a petition on Form 1-526. No allocation need be made among persons not seeking classification under section 203(b)(5) of the Act or among non-natural persons, either foreign or domestic. The Service shall recognize any reasonable agreement made among the alien entrepreneurs in regard to the identification and allocation of such qualifying positions.

(h) Establishment of a new commercial enterprise. commercial enterprise may consist of:

The establishment

of a new

(1) The creation of an original business;

(2) The purchase of an existing business and simultaneous or subsequent restructuring or reorganization such that a new commercial enterprise results; or

(3) The expansion of an existing business through the investment of the required amount, so that a substantial change in the net worth or number of employees

ADDENDUM

79

results from the investment of capital. Substantial change means a 40 percent increase either in the net worth, or in the number of employees, so that the new net worth, or number of employees iamounts to at least 140 percent of the preexpansion net worth or number of employees. Establishment of a new commercial enterprise in this manner does not exempt the petitioner from the requirements of 8 CFR 204.6(j) (2) and (3) relating to the required amount of capital investment and the creation of full-time employment for ten qualifying employees. In the case of a capital investment in a troubled business, employment creation may rn'eet the: criteria set forth in 8 CFR 204.6(j)(4)(ii).

(i) State designation of a high unemployment area. The state government of any state of the United States may designate a particular geographic or political subdivision located within a metropolitan statistical area or within a city or town having a population of 20,000 or more within such state as an area of high unemployment (at least 150 percent of the national average rate). Evidence of such designation, including a description of the boundaries of the geographic or political subdivision and the method or methods by which the unemployment statistics were obtained, may be provided to a prospective alien entrepreneur for submission with Form 1-526. Before any such designation is made, an official of the state must notify the Associate Commissioner for Examinations of the agency, board, or other _ appropriate governmental body of the state Which shall be delegated the authority to certify that the geographic or political subdivision is a high unemployment area.
i

(j) Initial evidence to accompany petition. A petition submitted for classification

as an alien entrepreneur must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has

invested or is actively in the process of investing lawfully obtained capital in a new

commercial enterprise in the United:States which will create fulMime positions for

not fewer than 10 qualifying employees. In the case of petitions submitted under

the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, a petition must be accompanied by evidence

that the alien has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, capital

obtained through lawful means within a regional center designated by the Service

in accordance with paragraph (m)(4) of this section. The petitioner may be

required to submit information or documentation

that the Service deems

appropriate in addition to that listed below.

(1) To show that a new commercial enterprise has been established petitioner in the United States, the petition must be accompanied by:

by the

(i) As applicable, articles of incorporation, certificate of merger or consolidation, partnership agreement, certificate of limited partnership, joint venture agreement,

ADDENDUM

80

business trust agreement, or other similar organizational commercial enterprise;

document for the new

(ii) A certificate evidencing authority to do business in a state or municipality or, if the form of the business does not require any such certificate or the State or municipality does not issue such a certificate, a statement to that effect; or

(iii) Evidence that, as of a date certain after November 29, 1990, the required amount of capital for the area in which an enterprise is located has been transferred to an existing business, and that the investment has resulted in a substantial increase in the net worth or number of employees of the business to which the capital was transferred. This evidence must be in the form of stock purchase agreements, investment agreements, certified financial reports, payroll records, or any similar instruments, agreements, or documents evidencing the investment in the commercial enterprise and the resulting substantial change in the net worth, number of employees.

(2) To show that the petitioner has invested or is actively in the process of investing the required amount of capital, the petition must be accompanied by evidence that the petitioner has placed the required amount of capital at risk for the purpose of generating a return on the capital placed at risk. Evidence of mere intent to invest, or of prospectiv e investment arrangements entailing no present commitment, will not suffice to show that the petitioner is actively in the process of investing. The alien must show actual commitment of the required amount of capital. Such evidence may include, but need not be limited to:

(i) Bank statement(s) showing amount(s) account(s) for the enterprise;

deposited in United States business

(ii) Evidence of assets which have been purchased for use in the United States enterprise, including invoices, sales receipts, and purchase contracts containing sufficient information to identify such assets, their purchase costs, date of purchase, and purchasing entity;

(iii) Evidence of property transferred from abroad for use in the United States enterprise, including United States Customs Service commercial entry documents, bills of lading, and transit insurance policies containing ownerslaip information and sufficient information to identify the property and to indicate the fair market value of such property;

ADDENDUM

81

(iv) Evidence of monies transferred or committed to be transferred to the new commercial enterprise in exchange for shares of stock (voting or nonvoting, common or preferred). Such stock may not include terms requiring the new commercial enterprise to redeem it at the holder's request; or

(v) Evidence of any loan or mortgage agreement, promissory note, security agreement, or other evidence of borrowing which is secured by assets of the petitioner, other than those of the new commercial enterprise, and for which the petitioner is personally and primarily liable.

(3) To show that the petitioner has invested, investing, capital obtained through lawful accompanied, as applicable, by:

or is actively in the process of means, the petition must be

(i) Foreign business registration records;
(ii) Corporate, partnership (or any other entity in any form which has filed in any country or subdivision thereof any return described in this subpart), and personal tax returns including income, franchise, property (whether real, personal, or intangible), or any other tax returns of any kind filed within five years, with any taxing jurisdiction in or outside the United States by or on behalf of the petitioner;

(iii) Evidence identifying any other Source(s) of capital; or

(iv) Certified copies of any judgments or evidence of all pending governmental civil or criminal actions, governmental administrative proceedings, and any private civil actions (pending or otherwise) involving monetary judgments against the petitioner from any court in or outside the United States within the past fifteen years.

(4) Job creation--

(i) General. To show that a new commercial ten (10) full-time positions for qualifying accompanied by:

enterprise will create not fewer than employees, the petition must be

(A) Documentation consisting of photocopies of relevant tax records, Form I-9, or other similar documents for ten (10) qualifying employees, if such employees have already been hired following the establishment of the new commercial enterprise;
or

ADDENDUM

82

(B) A copy of a comprehensive

business plan showing that, due to the nature and

projected size of the new commercial enterprise, the need for not fewer than ten

(10) qualifying employees will result, including approximate dates, within the next

two years, and when such employees will be hired.

(ii) Troubled business. To show that a new commercial enterprise which has been

established through a capital investment in a troubled business meets the statutory

employment

creation requirement,

the petition must be accompanied

by evidence

that the number of existing employees is being or will be maintained at no less than

the pre-investment

level for a period of at least two years. Photocopies

of tax

records, Forms I-9, or other relevant documents

comprehensive-business

plan shall be submitted

for the qualifying employees in support of the petition.

and a

(iii) Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.

To show that the new commercial

enterprise located within a regional center approved for participation

in the

Immigrant Investor Pilot Program meets the statutory employment

creation

requirement,

the petition must be accompanied

by evidence that the investment

will create full-time positions for not fewer than 10 persons either directly or

indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the

Pilot Program. Such evidence may be demonstrated

by reasonable methodologies

including those set forth in paragraph (m)(3) of this section.

(5) To show that the petitioner is or will be engaged in the management of the new

commercial

enterprise, either through the exercise of day-to-day

managerial

control or through policy formulation, as opposed to maintaining a purely passive

role in regard to the investment, the petition must be accompanied by:
i

(i) A statement of the position title that the petitioner has or will have in the new enterprise and a complete description of the position's duties;

(ii) Evidence that the petitioner board of directors; or

is a corporate officer or a member of the corporate

(iii) If the new enterprise is a partnership, either limited or general, evidence that the petitioner is engaged in either direct management or policy making activities.

For purposes of this section, if the petitioner is a limited partner and the limited

partnership

agreement provides the petitioner with certain rights, powers, and

duties normally granted to limited partners under the Uniform Limited Partnership

Act, the petitioner will be considered sufficiently engaged in the management of

ADDENDUM

83

the new commercial enterprise.

(6) If applicable, to show that. the new commercial

create employment accompanied by:

in a targeted employment

enterprise has created or will area, the petition must be

(i) In the case of a rural area, evidence that the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business within a civil jurisdiction not located within any standard metropolitan statistical area as designated by the Office of Management and Budget, or within any city or town having a population of 20,000 or more as based on the most recent decennial census of the United States; or

(ii) In the case of a high unemployment area:

(A) Evidence that the metropolitan statistical area, the specific county within a metropolitan statistical area, or the county in which a city or town with a population of 20,000 or more is located, in which the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business has experienced an average unemployment rate of 150 percent of the national average rate; or

(B) A letter from an authorized body of the government of the state in which the new commercial enterprise is located which certifies that the geographic or political subdivision of the metropolitan statistical area or of the city or town with a population of 20,000 or more in which the enterprise is principally doing business has been designated a high unemployment area. The letter must meet the requirements of 8 CFR 204.6(i).

(k) Decision. The petitioner will be notified of the decision, and, if the petition is denied, of the reasons for the denial and of the petitioner's right of appeal to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations in accordance with the provisions of part 103 of this chapter. The decision must specify whether or not the new commercial enterprise is principally doing business within a targeted employment
area.

(1) Disposition of approved petition. The approved petition will be forwarded to the United States consulate selected by the petitioner and indicated on the petition. If a consulate has not been designated, the petition will be forwarded to the consulate having jurisdiction over the place of the petitioner's last residence abroad. If the petitioner is eligible for adjustment of status to conditional permanent residence, and if the petition indicates that the petitioner intev_ds to

ADDENDUM

84

apply for such adjustment, the approved petition will be retained by the Service for consideration in conjunction with the application for adjustment of status.

(m) Immigrant Investor Pilot Program--

(1) Scope. The Immigrant Investoi Pilot Program is established solely pursuant to the provisions of section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, and subject to all conditions and restrictions stipulated in that section. Except as provided herein, aliens seeking to obtain immigration benefits under this paragraph continue to be subject to all conditions and restrictions set forth in section 203(b)(5) of the Act and this section.

(2) Number of immigrant visas allocated. The annual allocation of the visas available under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program is set at 300 for each of the five fiscal years commencing on October l, 1993.

(3) Requirements for regional centers. Each regional center wishing to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program shall submit a proposal to the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications, which:

(i) Clearly describes how the regional center focuses on a geographical the United States, and how it will :promote economic growth through export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased capital investment;

region of increased domestic

(ii) Provides in verifiable detail how jobs will be created indirectly through increased exports;

(iii) Provides a detailed statement regarding the amount and source of capital which has been committed to the regional center, as well as a description of the promotional efforts taken and planned by the sponsors of the regional center;

(iv) Contains a detailed prediction:regarding

the manner in which the regional

center will have a positive impact on the regional or national economy in general

as reflected by such factors as increased household earnings, greater demand for business services, utilities, maintenance and repair, and construction both within

and without the regional center; and

(v) Is supported by economically or statistically valid forecasting tools, including,

ADDENDUM

85

but not limited to, feasibility studies, analyses of foreign and domestic markets for the goods or services to be exported, and/or multiplier tables.
(4) Submission of proposals to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. On August 24, 1993, the Service will accept proposals from regional centers seeking approval to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Regional centers that have been approved by the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications will be eligible to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.
(5) Decision to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. The Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications shill notify the regional center of his or her decision on the request for approval to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, and, if the petition is den{ed, of the reasons for the denial and of the regional center's right of appeal to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations. Notification of denial and appeal rights , and the procedure for appeal shall be the same as those contained in 8 CFR 103.3.
(6) Termination of participation of regional centers. To ensure that regional centers continue to meet the requirements of section 610(a) of the Appropriations Act, the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications shall issue a notice of intent to terminate the participation of a regional center in the pilot program upon a determination that the regional center no longer serves the purpose of promoting economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment. The notice of intent to terminate shall be made upon notice to the regional center and shall set forth the reasons for termination. The regional center must be provided thirty days from receipt of the notice of intent to terminate to offer evidence in opposition to the ground or grounds alleged in the notice of intent to terminate. If the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications determines that the regional center's participation in the Pilot Program should be terminated, the Assistant Commissioner for Adjudications shall notify the regional center of the decision and of the reasons for termination. The regional center may appeal the decision within thirty days after the service of notice to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations as provided in 8 CFR 103.3.
(7) Requirements for alien entrepreneurs. An alien seeking an immigrant visa as an alien entrepreneur under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program must demonstrate that his or her qualifying investment is within a regional center approved pursuant to paragraph (m)(4) of this section and that such investment will

ADDENDUM

86

create jobs indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports resulting from the new commercial enterprise.
(i) Exports. For purposes of paragraph (m) of this section, the term "exports" means services or goods which are produced directly or indirectly through revenues generated from a new commercial enterprise and which are transported out of the United States;
(ii) Indirect job creation. To show that 10 or more jobs are actually created indirectly by the business, reasonable methodologies may be used. Such methodologies may include multiplier tables, feasibility studies, analyses of foreign and domestic markets for the goods or services to be exported, and other economically or statistically valid forecasting devices which indicate the likelihood that the business will result in increased employment.
(8) Time for submission of petitions for classification as an alien entrepreneur under the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. Commencing on October 1, 1993, petitions will be accepted for filing and adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of this section if the alien entrepreneur has invested or is actively in the process of investing within a regional center which has been approved by the Service for participation in the Pilot Program.
(9) Effect of termination of approval of regional center to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program.: Upon termination of approval of a regional center to participate in the Immigrant Investor Pilot Program, the director shall send a formal written notice to any alien within the regional center who has been granted lawful permanent residence on a conditional basis under the Pilot Program, and who has not yet removed the conditional basis of such lawful permanent residence, of the termination of the alien's permanent resident status, unless the alien can establish continued eligibility for alien entrepreneur classification under section 203(b)(5) of the Act.

ADDENDUM

87

8 C.F.R. 216.6
§ 216.6 Petition by entrepreneur to remove conditional basis of lawful permanent resident status.

(a) Filing the petition--

(1) General procedures.

A petition to remove the conditional basis of the

permanent resident status of an alien accorded conditional permanent residence

pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the Act must be filed by the alien entrepreneur on

Form 1-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions.

The alien

entrepreneur must file Form 1-829 within the 90-day period preceding the second

anniversary of his or her admission to _the United States as a conditional permanent

resident. Before Form 1-829 may be considered as properly filed, it must be accompanied by the fee required under § 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter, and by

documentation as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, and it must be

properly signed by the alien. Upon receipt of a properly filed Form 1-829, the

alien's conditional permanent resident status shall be extended automatically, if

necessary, until such time as the director has adjudicated the petition. The

entrepreneur's spouse and children should be included in the petition to remove

conditions. Children who have reached the age of twenty-one or who have married

during the period of conditional permanent residence and the former spouse of an

entrepreneur, who was divorced from the entrepreneur during the period of

conditional permanent residence, may be included in the alien entrepreneur's

petition or may file a separate petition:

(2) Jurisdiction. Form 1-829 must be filed with the regional service center having jurisdiction over the location of the alien entrepreneur's commercial enterprise in the United States.

(3) Physical presence at time of filing. A petition may be filed regardless of whether the alien is physically present in the United States. However, if the alien is outside the United States at the time of filing, he or she must return to the United States, with his or her spouse and ichildren, if necessary, to comply with the interview requirements contained in the Act. Once the petition has been properly filed, the alien may travel outside the United States and return if in possession of documentation as set forth in {} 21i.l(b)(1) of this chapter, provided, the alien complies with the interview requirements described in paragraph (b) of this section. An alien who is not phys.ically present in the United States during the

ADDENDUM

88

filing period but subsequently applies for admission to the United States shall be processed in accordance with § 235.11 of thischapter.
(4) Documentation. The petition for removal of conditions must be accompanied by the follow!ng evidence:
(i) Evidence that a commercial enterprise was established bythe alien. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, Federal income tax returns;
z
(ii)Evidence that .the alien invested or was actively in the process of investing the requisffe capital. Such evidence mas, include, but is not limited to, an audited financial statement or other probative evidence; and
(iii) Evidence that the alien sustained the actions described in paragraph. (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this Section throughout-the period of the alien's residence in the United States. The alien will be considered to have sustained the actions required for removal of conditions if he or she has, in good faith, substantially met the capital investment requirement of the statute and continuously maintained his or her capital investment over the two years of conditional residence. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, bank statements, invoices, receipts, contracts, business licenses, Federal or State income tax returns, and Federal or State quarterly tax statements.
(iv) Evidence that the alien created or can be expected to create within a reasonable time ten full-time jobs for qualifying employees. In the case of a "troubled business" as defined in 8 CFR 204.6(j)(4)(ii), the alien entrepreneur must submit evidence that the commercial enterprise maintained the number of existing employees at no less than the pre-investment level for the period following his or her admission as a conditional permanent resident. Such evidence may include payroll records, relevant tax documents, and Forms I- 9.
(5) Termination of status for failure to file petition. Failure to properly file Form 1-829 within the 90-day period immediately preceding the second anniversary of the date on which the alien obtained lawful permanent residence on a conditional basis shall result in the automatic termination of the alien's permanent resident status and the initiation of deportation proceedings. The director shall send a written notice of termination and an order to show cause to an alien entrepreneur who fails to timely file a petition for removal of conditions. No appeal shall lie from this decision; however, the alien may request a review of the determination during deportation proceedings. In deportation proceedings, the burden of proof

ADDENDUM

89

shall rest with the alien to show by apreponderance of the evidence that he or she complied with the requirement to file the petition within the designated period. The director may deem the petition to have been filed prior to the second anniversary of the alien's obtaining conditional permanent resident status and accept and consider a late petition if the alien demonstrates to the director's satisfaction that failure to file a timely petition was for good cause and due to extenuating Circumstances. If the late petition is filed prior to jurisdiction vesting with the immigration judge in deportation proceedings and the director excuses the late filing and approves the petition, he or she shall restore the alien's permanent resident status, remove the conditional basis of such status, and cancel any outstanding order to show cause in accordance with § 242.7 of this chapter. If the petition is not filed until after jurisdiction vests with the immigration judge, the immigration judge may terminate the matter upon joint motion by the alien and the Service.
(6) Death of entrepreneur and effect on spouse and children. If an entrepreneur dies during the prescribed two-year period of conditional permanent residence, the spouse and children of the entrepreneur will be eligible for removal of conditions if it can be demonstrated that the conditions set forth in paragraph (a)(4) of this section have been met.
(b) Petition review--
(1) Authority to waive interview. The director of the service center shall review the Form 1-829 and the supporting documents to determine whether to waive the interview required by the Act. If satisfied that the requirements set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section have been met, the service center director may waive the interview and approve the petition. If not so satisfied, then the service center director shall forward the petition to the district director having jurisdiction over the location of the alien entrepreneur's commercial enterprise in the United States so that an interview of the alien entrepreneur may be conducted. The director must either waive the requirement for an interview and adjudicate the petition or arrange for an interview within 90 days of the date on which the petition, was properly filed.
(2) Location of interview. Unless waived, an interview relating to the Form 1-829 shall be conducted by an immigration examiner or other officer so designated by the district director at the district office that 'has jurisdiction over the location of the alien entrepreneur's commercial enterprise in the United, States.

ADDENDUM

90

(3) Termination of status for failure to appear for interview. If the alien fails to appear for an interview in connection with the petition when requested by the Service, the alien's permanent resident status will be automatically terminated as of the second anniversary of the date on which the alien obtained permanent residence. The alien will be provided with written notification of the termination and the reasons therefore, and an order to show cause shall be issued placing the alien under deportation proceedings. The alien may seek review of the decision to terminate his or her status in such proceedings, but the burden shall be on the alien to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she complied with the interview requirements. If the alien has failed to appear for a scheduled interview , he or she may submit a written request to the district director asking that the interview be rescheduled or that the interview be waived. That request should explain his or her failure to appear for the scheduled interview, and if a request for waiver of the interview, the reasons such waiver should be granted. If the district director determines that there is good cause for granting the request, the interview may be rescheduled or waived, as appropriate. If the district director waives the interview, he or she shall restore the alien's conditional permanent resident status, cancel any outstanding order to show cause in accordance with § 242.7 of this chapter, and proceed to adjudicate the alien's petition. If the district director reschedules that alien's interview, he!or she shall restore the alien's conditional permanent resident status, and cancej any outstanding order to show cause in accordance with § 242.7 of this chapter. If the interview is rescheduled at the request of the alien, the Service shall not be required to conduct the interview within the 90-day period following the filing of the petition.
(c) Adjudication of petition.
(1) The decision on the petition shall be made within 90 days of the date of filing or within 90 days of the interview, whichever is later. In adjudicating the petition, the director shall determine whether:
(i) A commercial enterprise was established by the alien;
(ii) The alien invested or was actively in the process of investing the requisite capital; and
(iii) The alien sustained the actions described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States. The alien will be considered to have sustained the actions required for removal of conditions if he or she has, in good faith, substantially met the capital investment

ADDENDUM

91

.._.

._-yjj

requirement of the statute and continuously maintained investment over the two years of conditional residence.

his or her capital

(iv) The alien created or can be expected to create within a reasonable period of

time ten full-time jobs tO qualifying employees.

In the case of a "troubled

business" as defined in 8 CFR 204.6(j)(4)(ii), the alien maintained the number of

existing employees at no less than the pre-investment level for the previous two

years.

(2) If derogatory information is determined regarding any of these issues or it becomes known to the government that the entrepreneur obtained his or her investment funds through other than legal means (such as through the sale of illegal drugs), the director shall offer the alien entrepreneur the opportunity to rebut such information. If the alien entrepreneur fails to overcome such derogatory information or evidence the investment funds were obtained through other than legal means, the director may deny the petition, terminate the alien's permanent resident status, and issue an order to show cause. If derogatory information not relating to any of these issues is determined during the course of the interview, such information shall be forwarded to the investigations unit for appropriate action. If no unresolved derogatory information is determined relating to these issues, the petition shall be approved, and the conditional basis of the alien's permanent resident status removed, regardless of any action taken or contemplated regarding other possible grounds for deportation.

(d) Decision--

(1) Approval. If, after initial review 0r after the interview, the director approves

the petition, he or she will remove the conditional basis of the alien's permanent

resident status as of the second anniversary of the alien's entry as a conditional

permanent.resident.

He or she shall provide written notice of the decision to the

alien and shall require the alien to report to the appropriate district office for

processing for a new Permanent Resident Card, Form 1-551, at which time the

alien shall surrender any Permanent Resident Card previously issued.

(2) Denial. If, after initial review or after the interview, the director denies the petition, he or she shall provide written notice to the alien of the decision and the reason(s) therefor, and shall issue an order to show cause why the alien should not be deported from the United States. The alien's lawful permanent resident status and that of his or her spouse and any .children shall be terminated as of the date of the director's written decision. The alien shall also be instructed to surrender any

ADDENDUM

92

Permanent Resident Card previously issued by the Service. No appeal shall lie

from this decision; however, the alien may seek review Of the decision in

deportation proceedings. In deportation proceedings, the burden shall rest with the

Service to. establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts and

information in the alien's petition for removal of conditions are not true an d that

the petition was properly denied.

_

_

- " -_

ADDENDUM

93

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Matthew S. Carlson, the undersigned, say:
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action or proceedings; my business address is: KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER & TETZELI, P.A., 2650 SW 27 th Avenue, 2 n_Floor, Miami, Florida 33133.

On June 13, 2002 1 served the within:

PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANT'S-INITIAL

BRIEF

on the Office of Immigration Litigation by depositing two true copies, thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid, in a mailbox regularly maintained by the Government of the United States to each person listed below addressed as follows:

Heather Phillips, Esq. Office of Immigration Litigation Department of Justice/Civil Division P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044
Executed on June 13, 2002, at Miami, Florida. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Mat _w /'Carlson, Esq. Decla_'_n
f

94

 
 Nos. 01-56266

& 01-56379

_,_

:T _-h

=: _IL=_'---: "

IN THE

UNITED

STATES

FOR THE NINTH

WEN-WAN

CHANG,

COURT OF CIRCUIT
et al.,

APPEALS

_Fp I__ _

C,:,TrlY _ C/'_FFER_ON' CLERK d. {5, . COU_"",T OF APPEALS

UNITED

Plaintiff
V.
STATES OF AMERICA

-Appellant,

De fendant -Appel i ee.

ON PETITION

FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION

APPEALS

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

ROBERT D. McCALLUM,

Assistant

Attorney

Civil Division

JR. General

JOHN C. C[TNNINGHAM

Senior Litigation

Counsel

Office

of Immigration

Litigation

HEATHER

R. PHILLIPS

Trial Attorney

Office of Immigration Civil Division

Litigation

U.S. Dept. of Justice

P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin

Station

Washington,

D.C.

20044

Telephone:

(202) 616-9343

Attorneys

for Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

...............

1

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ........................

4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................

6

I.

Governing Statutory and Regulatory Provisions ................

6

II. The EB-5 Precedent Decisions ..............................

8

III. The Complaint .........................................

11

IV. The District Court's Order ................................

12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................

16

ARGUMENT .....................................................

19

I.

Standard of Review ......................................

19

II. The District Court Erred in Finding Jurisdiction to Review Chiang's

1-829 Denial ...........................................

21

III. The District Court Separately Erred By Remanding the Denial of

Chiang's 1-829 Petition for a "Retroactivity" Analysis Pursuant to

Montgomery_ Ward ......................................

27

IV. The District Court Correctly Determined That the Claims of Six of

the Seven Named Plaintiffs Were Not Ripe for Review .........

35

V. The District Court Properly Determined that Plaintiffs' Motion for

Class Certification Was Mooted ............................

39

VI. The District Court Correctly Determined that Plaintiffs' Estoppel

Claim Failed Because There Was No Showing of Affirmative

Misconduct by the Government ............................

43

VII. This Court Has Determined That the Issuance of the Precedent

Decisions Did Not Violate the APA and Plaintiffs' Attempts to

Distinguish Their Case Must Fail ...........................

48

VIII. The INS Did Not Amend the Scope of Inquiry To Be Undertaken in

the Adjudication of an 1-829 Petition ........................

50

CONCLUSION ...................................................

55

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner., 387 U.S. 136 (1967) ..........................................
Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1998) ....................................
Air North America v. Department of Transportation, 937 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................
Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482 (1947) ..........................................
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. FTC., 546 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1977) ....................................
Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) .......................................
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................
Burns v. United States., 974 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................
Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................
Chan v. Reno., 113 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................
Chevron U.S.A.v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) .......................................

36 23 19 33 25 42 21, 26 39 45 24 20 19, 20

City of Rochester v. Bond,

603 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ..................................

25

Department of Health and Human Services v. Chater,

163 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................

20

Far East Conference v. United States.,

342 U.S. 570 (1952) ..........................................

26

Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb,

82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................................

37

Frito-Lay, Inc. v. FTC,

380 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1967) ......................................

25

General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,

457 U.S. 147 (1983) ..........................................

40

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,

976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................

41

Heckler v. Community Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51 (1984) ........................................

43, 44

INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre,

526 U.S. 415 (1999) ..........................................

20

Jang v. Reno,

113 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................

19

Jenkins v. INS,

108 F.3d 195 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................

20

Kashani v. Nelson,

793 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 644 (1986) .......

24

Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co.,

28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994) .....................................

40

Landgraf v. USI Film Products,

511 U.S. 244 (1994) ..........................................

31

Lubin v. Sybedon Corp.,

688 F. Supp. 1425 (S.D. Cal. 1988) ..............................

41

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation,

497 U.S. 871 (1990) .........................................

36

Mantolete v. Bolger,

767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................

40

Montgomery_ Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................
Mukherjee v. INS, 793 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................

4, passim 45

NLRB v. Food Store Employees Union,

417 U.S. 1 (1974) ............................................

37

NLRB v. Seven-Up Co.,

344 U.S. 344 (1953) ..........................................

46

OPM v. Richmond,

496 U.S. 414 (1990) ..........................................

44

Oscar v. University Students Co-operative Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 655 (1992) ............
Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974) ...........................
Powderly v. Schweiker, 704 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................
Price v. Akaka., 3 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 1993) .....................................

19 22, 25
30 47

R.L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS ("RLILP"), 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1014 ..................................

2, passim

R.L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS ("RLILP"), 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001) .....................

4, 22, 32, 53, 57, 75

Regions Hospital v. Shalala,

522 U.S. 448 (1998) ..........................................

31

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Servs.,

907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ..............................

44

Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993) .................................

36, 37, 38, 39

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380 (D.C. Cir. 1972) ...............................

28, 34

Rhode v. City of West Lafayette, Indiana,

850 F. Supp. 753 (N.D. Ind. 1993) ...............................

22

Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1975) .................................

40, 41

SECv. Chenery Corp.,

332 U.S. 194 (1947) ..........................................

28

Seldovia Native Ass'n, Inc. v. Lujan,

904 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................

45

Smiley v. Citibank (.South Dakota),

517 U.S. 735 (1996) ..........................................

47

Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala,

512 U.S. 504 (1994) ..........................................

20

Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner,

387 U.S. 158 (1967) ..........................................

37

United States v. Monsanto.,

491 U.S. 600 (1989) ..........................................

33

United States v. Southern Railway Co.,

364 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966) .....................................

22

Wagner v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

847 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1988) ....................................

44

Watkins v. United States Army,

875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 957 (1990) ........

44

Western Mining Council v. Watt,

643 F.2d 618 (9th Cir. 1981) ....................................

44

Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co.,

379 U.S. 411 (1965) ..........................................

25

Young v. Reno,

114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................

23

ADMINISTRATIVE

DECISIONS

Matter of Izumii, Int. Dec. No. 3360, 22 1 & N ..............................
STATUTES

4, passim

28 U.S.C. § 1291(Supp. II 2002) .......................................

3

5 U.S.C. § 703 (Supp. II 2002) .......................................

21

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended:

Section 103(a)(1)

8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1) (Supp. II 2002) ............................

24

Section 203(b)(5)(A) 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A) (Supp. II 2002) ...................
Section 216A(a)(1) 8 U.S.C. §1186b(a)(1) ...................................
Section 242 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Supp. II 2002) ............................
FEDERAL REGULATIONS

1, passim 4, passim 4, 22, 23

8 C.F.R. §103.3(c) (2000) ............................................

2

8 C.F.R. § 204.6 (West 2002) .................................. 8 C.F.R. § 208.9(a) (2002) ..........................................

7, passim 24

8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (2002) .............................................

34

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(1) (West 2002) ............................. 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(h)(1) (2002) ..........................................

8, passim 24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ° ° • • ° ° ° • ° ° ° ° .........

° ° ° ° ° ° ° • • ....

° ° • • ° • ° .....

°° 3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ° ° • • ° ° • • .....

° ° ° ° • ° ° ° ° ° ° ° • • • • • ° • ° • • • ° ° ° ° ° • • ° ° • • 40

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) .............................................

3,29

59 Fed. Reg. 1317 (1994) .......

...... .............................

34

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 01-56266 and 01-56379
WEN-WAN CHANG, ET AL., Plaintiff-Appellant,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

District

Appeal from the United States Court for the Central District of California
CV 99-10518-GHK (AJAx)

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

1

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This case requires the Court to revisit section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration
Plaintiffs and Defendant filed cross-appeals from the District Court's Decision of May 7, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on June 13, 2002. The instant brief constitutes Defendant's cross-appeal and response to Appellant's brief.

and Nationality Act ("INA"). First enacted in 1990 and known colloquially as the "EB-5" program, this statute offers preference visas and possible lawful permanent resident ("green card") status to aliens who are willing to act as "immigrant investors" by investing specified amounts of capital in the United States and creating specified numbers of full-time jobs.
In the summer of 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS" or "Service") issued four adjudicatory decisions interpreting section 203(b)(5) and its implementing regulations as they applied to a number of issues that had arisen during the course of the INS's administration of the statute. These decisions were published and therefore became binding "on all Service employees in the administration of the [INA]." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) (2002). Subsequently, several lawsuits were brought challenging the INS's decisions on substantive and procedural grounds. In R.L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001), adopting 86 F. Supp.2d 1014 (D. Hi. 2000) ("RLILP"), this Court, in a sweeping opinion, affirmed summary judgment for the government in one of those cases, z
The Court now has before it an appeal and cross-appeal from orders by the
2 For ease of reference, RLILP will generally be cited only by the adopted district court opinion.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued before RLILP. Plaintiffs consist of seven individual aliens (and their dependants) and twentyeight limited partnerships. (Excerpts of Record ("E.R.") at 4, ¶3). They brought suit arguing that application of the precedent decisions to the adjudication of their visa petitions would result in denial of the petitions and would be impermissibly "retroactive," and that the INS should be estopped from denying them lawful permanent residency. (E.R. at 75-77).
Plaintiffs appeal, and the United States cross-appeals, from an order entered by the district court on May 7, 2001, granting in part and denying in part the United States's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. (E.R. 121-45). Plaintiffs also appeal and the United States also cross-appeals from orders entered by the district court on June 14, 2001, denying plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint to add additional named plaintiffs (or in the alternative for class certification), and denying the United States's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend the court's previous order. (E.R. 155-58). The notices of appeal were timely filed on July 2, 2001, and July 24, 2001, respectively. This Court's jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Supp. II 2002).

DEFENDANT'S

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Whether the district court erred in finding jurisdiction to review the INS's denial of plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang's petition for permanent resident status under section 216A of the INA, where that statute provides that Chiang has the right to full de novo review of the INS's action in any subsequent removal proceeding, with the burden of proof lying with the INS; and where, in the event that a final order of removal is entered against him, Chiang would have the fight under section 242 of the INA to seek review by a circuit court of appeals.
2. Whether, having found jurisdiction, the district court also erred in remanding the denial of Plaintiff Chiang's petition for permanent resident status to the INS for a "retroactivity" analysis pursuant to Montgomery_ Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982), where this Court has already held in RLILP that Matter of Izumii and the other EB-5 precedent decisions did not effect a "new rule" in the Montgomery_ Ward sense, where INA § 216A requires a fresh demonstration of compliance with the immigrant investor statutes before an 1-829 petition can be granted, and where INA § 216A does not empower the INS to consider "degree of burden" or any of the other Montgomery_ Ward factors in considering Chiang's petition.

3. Whether the district court correctly determined that six of the seven plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for review, and properly denied them injunctive and declaratory relief, given that the six plaintiffs had not had their 1-829 petitions adjudicated by the INS.
4. Whether the district court properly determined that plaintiffs' motion for class certification was moot, where plaintiffs failed to timely file an application for class certification to the district court, and where, in any event, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claims were typical of the class and where class treatment of plaintiffs' claims is unnecessary.
5. Whether the district court correctly determined that estoppel did not apply to bar the application of the precedent decisions where there was absolutely no evidence of affirmative misconduct on the part of the government.
6. Whether the district court correctly found that the issuance of the precedent decisions did not violate the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") or promulgate new EB-5 investment criteria, given this Court's holding in RLILP that the precedent decisions did not amend or change the existing statutory and regulatory requirements for the EB-5 program.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.

Governing Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

In order to qualify for preferred visa status under section 203(b)(5), the alien

must be seeking to enter the United States "for the purpose of engaging in a new

commercial enterprise," 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A) (Supp. II 2002), "which the

alien has established," id__§__1. 153(b)(5)(A)(i), and "which will.., create full-time

employment for not fewer than 10 United States citizens" or lawful aliens, id__§_,.

1153(b)(5)(A)(iii).

The alien must have invested or be "actively in the process of

investing," id.__§_.1153(b)(5)(A)(ii), at least $I,000,000 in the new commercial

enterprise, unless the investment is to be made in a "targeted employment area," in

which case the investment must be at least $500,000. Id.__§_.1153(b)(5)(C)(i)-(ii). Aliens may qualify for EB-5 preferred visa status by investing in a "regional
center" and demonstrating by "reasonable methodologies" their compliance with the job-creation requirements. Pub. L. No. 102-395, § 610(a), 106 Stat. 1874 (1992), as amended by Visa Waiver Permanent Program Act, Pub. L. No. 106-396, § 402 (a), 114 Stat. 1637 (2000). The statute does not define "reasonable

methodologies," but the minimum of ten full-time jobs may include "jobs which are estimated to have been created indirectly through revenues generated from increased exports." 106 Stat. 1874; see RLILP, 86 F. Supp.2d at 1017.

Obtaining lawful permanent residence in the United States under the EB-5 program is a two-stage process. The alien must first file an "I-526" petition setting forth information about himself and his proposed qualifying investment. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.60) (2002). If the petition is approved, the alien is notified, the petition is forwarded to the appropriate U.S. consulate, and an interview with a consular officer is held. See id__§__2.04.6(1) (2002). Ira preference visa is granted, the alien (and his or her dependents) are admitted to the United States for permanent residence, but on a conditional basis. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1) (Supp. II 2002); RLILP, 86 F. Supp.2d at 1017. Under section 216A of the INA, the alien is required to file an "I-829" petition with the INS to remove the condition within the 90-day period before the second anniversary of his admission. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1) (Supp. II 2002); id.__§__1.186b(d)(2). The petition will be granted if the INS determines that the alien, throughout the period of his residence in the United States, met and sustained the statutory requirements of establishment of a commercial enterprise, investment of the required amount of capital, and creation often full-time jobs. See id__§__1. 186b(d)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4) (2002). The conditional status is then removed, and the alien receives full permanent resident status as of the second anniversary of his admission. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(B) (Supp. II 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(1) (2002).

On the other hand, if the INS finds that the alien did not comply with the statutory requirements throughout the period of his conditional residence in the United States, the 1-829 petition must be denied and the alien's permanent resident status must be terminated. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1186b(c)(3)(C) and (d)(1) (Supp. II 2002). The alien is then placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2) (2002). In such proceedings, the burden is on the INS to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the denial of the 1-829 petition was correct. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(D) (Supp. II 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2) (2002). II. The EB-5 Precedent Decisions
As the Court stated in RLILP., the INS began to experience a sharp increase in the number ofi-526 petitions in FY 1996. 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1017. This was attributed by the Service to the liberalized standards of the regional center alternative and to marketing efforts overseas by American "private sector promoters like American Immigration Services (AIS)? Id. As in this case (E.R. at 14-50, ¶¶ 34-61, and 53-56, ¶¶ 77-83), many of the new 1-526 petitions did not set forth proposals by individual aliens to invest in a business that they would start up and run themselves, but rather reflected efforts by U.S.-based organizations such as
3 According to the Amended Complaint (E.R. at 71, ¶ 109), the individual investor Plaintiffs invested in the limited Partnership Plaintiffs through programs established by AIS.

AIS to recruit aliens to invest in them, typically as limited partners, and who

proposed to use the aliens' capital in projects that would be controlled, not by the

aliens, but by the organizations' 18.

general partners. RLILP, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1017-

The immigrant investor regulations permit this type of relationship, and INS adjudicators approved some of these new-style applications, as they appeared to hold out the promise of more extensive employment creation by enabling companies to amass pooled capita. However, by laie 1997, the INS had become aware that some of the proposals set forth in I°526 petitions contained features that

appeared to be contrary to the immigrant investor regulations.

These included

"buy-back" or redemption provisions that gave the alien the right to ask for the

return of his investment after a designated period of time. RLILP, 86 F. Supp. 2d

at. 1018. In order to prevent any more approvals that might be contrary to the EB-

5 statute and its regulations, the INS placed an administrative

hold on the

adjudication of all EB-5 petitions with problematic features until it could complete a full review of the situation. Id_.__A.s a result of its review, and in order to address

a number of substantive issues that had arisen under the EB-5 program, the AAO

published the precedent decisions in the summer of 1998. Id.__.Subsequently.

the

administrative

hold was lifted and the EB-5 petitions that were subject to that hold

were adjudicated under the guidance of the precedent decisions. Id...__. Although the relief sought by Plaintiffs from this Court encompasses most,
if not all, of the precedent decisions, the most significant for this case is Matter of Izumii, Int. Dec. No. 3360, 22 I & N Dec. __, 1998 WL 483977 (Exam. Comm. July 13, 1998). The immigrant investor regulations state that "a contribution of capital in exchange for a note, bond, convertible debt, obligation, or any other debt arrangement between the alien entrepreneur and the new commercial enterprise does not constitute a contribution of capital for purposes of this part." 8 C.F.R. §
Q
204.6(e) (2002) (defining "invest"). The central holding of Izumii is that, for purposes of meeting the statutory and regulatory definition of"invest" (or "contribution of capital"), an alien may not enter into an agreement, prior to the end of his two-year period of conditional residence, that grants him the right to sell his interest back to the partnership or other enterprise. 1998 WL 483977 at 14 (printed version). Such an agreement, it was held, converts the alien's capital from the required equity investment into a loan to the commercial enterprise. Id.__,. Izumii also found that a promise that the alien will receive a return on his money similarly indicates that the alien has made a loan to the enterprise rather than an equity investment. Id.__at_,.10 (printed version) n.10.
10

III. The Complaint

As noted above, plaintiffs consist of seven individual aliens (and their

dependents) and twenty-eight limited partnerships. 4 The individual plaintiffs

claimed to have invested in the partnership plaintiffs, had their 1-526 petitions

approved, and were granted conditional permanent residency sometime in either

1996 or 1997, before the four precedent decisions were issued. (E.R. at 7-11, ¶¶ 11-17). Plaintiffs claimed that they relied upon the INS's interpretation of the

statute, as established by unpublished decisions, letters, and an unpublished

General Counsel opinion, when they structured their investment plans and applied

for their conditional residency under the EB-5 program, and that as a result of the

precedent decisions their investment programs are now "inoperable and

unapprovable." (E.R. at 5, ¶ 5; E.R. 55, ¶ 81; see Plaintiffs/Appellants'

Initial

Brief ("App. Brf.") at 16-17). They further claimed that because the precedent

decisions represented a sharp departure from this previous interpretation and

imposed new requirements, the changes that the INS sought to impose through

these decisions could only be made through notice-and-comment

rulemaking.

4 Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint as a class action on March 8, 2000, but failed to seek certification of the proposed class. The district court determined that plaintiffs' motion for class certification was moot in light of its decision with respect to the United States's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
11

Plaintiffs asked the district court to declare the four precedent decisions invalid because the INS's issuance of the precedent decisions amounted to rulemaking without notice and comment and was a violation of the APA, constituted an abuse of discretion, exceeded the INS's statutory authority, and violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment (claims 1-4). (E.R. at 7274). They further argued that application of the precedent decisions to the adjudication of their 1-829 petitions would be "retroactive" and that the INS should be estopped from denying them lawful permanent residency (claims 6-7). (E.R. at 75-77). The parmership plaintiffs, in addition, sought an estimated $17.5 million in damages under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment (claim 5). (E.R. at 74-75). IV. The District Court's Order
The district court first held that the parmership plaintiffs lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. (E.R. at 125-i26). Specifically, the court stated that "it may reasonably be said that the Partnerships' interests fall outside the zone of interests." (E.R. at 126). Further, the district court noted that, given its determination that the precedent decisions were validly issued, and "[w]here, as here, the INS has determined in the Precedent Decisions that the structure of these business entities does not fulfill ihe purposes of the statute, then it can fairly be
12

said that the Partnerships' interests are inconsistent with the purposes of the EB-5 statute. This being the case, and particularly since Congress did not provide for any administrative remedy for business entities such as the Partnerships, it is unreasonable to assume that Congress intended to permit this suit on behalf of the partnerships." Id__,.
The district court further held that six of the seven individual plaintiffs' claims were not ripe for review, as the INS had not yet denied their I°829 petitions. (E.R. at 127-129). As only plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang had actually received a denial of his 1-829 petition, only his case was properly before the district court. Id..__T_h. e district court therefore granted the United States's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the six individual plaintiffs whose 1-829s had not yet been adjudicated. (E.R. at 129).
However, the district court held that because Chiang had received an actual denial of his 1-829 petition, his claims were ripe for review. (E.R. at 129). Further, the district court determined that it had jurisdiction to review Chiang's case, given that "Congress has chosen to explicitly limit jurisdiction for review in certain administrative schemes, but it has not done so with respect to the Immigrant Investor Program. As such, we conclude that we may exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff Chiang's APA claims." (E.R. at 130).
13

After assuming jurisdiction over Chiang's claims, the district court held that, contrary to Chiang's arguments, the precedent decisions amounted to an interpretive, rather than a legislative rule. (E.R. at 130). Moreover, "the Precedent Decisions did not change or add to any requirements of the EB-5 statute as set forth in the federal regulations .... Thus, the Precedent Decisions were not inconsistent with a regulation having the force of law." (E.R. at 133-134). As a result, the district court found that "the fact that the INS did not engage in notice and comment rulemaking was not a violation Of the APA, an abuse of discretion, an action exceeding statutory authority or a violation of Due Process and Equal Protection." (E.R. at 136).
In addition, the district curt held that the precedent decisions did not conflict with, or amend, any prior interpretive rule in violation of the APA. (E.R. at 138). "In the present case.., neither the General Counsel opinions nor the prior AAO decisions had ever been published. They had not been held out to be a precedential interpretation of the regulation. Therefore the precedent decisions could not be construed to amend a prior interpretive rule." (E.R. at 138). As such, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs' Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, except to the extent those Counts incorporated the plaintiffs' claim of improper retroactive effect. Id___.
14

With respect to Chiang's claim of improper retroactive effect, the district court denied the United States's motion, holding that "[i]n effect, having already approved Plaintiff Chiang's investment program by virtue of its approval of his 1526 petition, the INS effectively changed the rules of the game by judging Plaintiff Chiang's [I-829] petition under the Precedent Decisions even though Plaintiff Chiang had not altered his previously approved investment program, and had not acted in a way which would otherwise justify denial of the 1-829, but for the Precedent Decisions." (E.R. at 138-I 39). As such, the district court concluded that retroactivity analysis pursuant to this Court's decision in Montgomery_ Ward, 691 F.2d at 1333, was warranted in Chiang's case. (E.R. at 139). In sum, the district court held that "[a]lthough we conclude that the Precedent Decisions did not generally alter prior official action so as to require notice and comment rulemaking, there has been an official ruling as to Plaintiff Chiang, when his 1-526 petition was approved .... as such, we hereby remand Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 denial to the INS for it to consider and compile an administrative record as to whether application of the Precedent Decisions to Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 petition would result in an improper retroactive application of law under the Montgomery_ Ward five factor analysis." (E.R. at 139).
The district court concluded its decision by rejecting Plaintiffs' estoppel
15

claim and granting judgment on the pleadings for the United States with respect to that issue, as it noted that there had been no showing of affirmative misconduct on the part of the government. (E.R. at 141.) The district court further determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the partnership plaintiffs' Takings claim because "the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims under the Tucker Act where the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000." (E.R. at 142). The court therefore granted judgment on the pleadings with respect to Count Five as to plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages. Id.__F_i_n.ally, the district court noted that in light of its ruling, plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to set a discovery schedule were mooted. Id_.__.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The district court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction over Plaintiff Chiang's claims. In INA § 216A, Congress clearly and expressly provided aliens with an avenue of judicial review for 1-829 denials. As such, any review of such denials lies in removal proceedings and not in district court. Congress never intended for district courts to review the merits ofi-829 denials; instead, an alien is required to initially exhaust his administrative remedies with a request for review in removal proceedings before an immigration judge and the BIA. Thereafter, if necessary, an alien is entitled to seek judicial review in the courts of
16

appeals. The district court further erred in determining that a retroactivity analysis

pursuant to Montgomery_ Ward was warranted in plaintiff Chiang's case, and in

remanding Chiang's 1-829 denial to the INS for an assessment of burden. The

Montgomery_ Ward test is inapplicable to this case because the granting of

permanent residency under INA § 203(b)(5) is a two-step process. The initial I- '

526 approval does not in any way guarantee, or even predict, 1-829 approval, and indeed, each petition undergoes an entirely separate and independent review,

negating the possibility ofretroactivity.

Even if a Montgomery_ Ward analysis

were appropriate, however, Chiang's 1-829 should not have been remanded to the INS. Instead, Chiang should be required to develop his arguments during the

course of his removal hearings. Then, and only then, would the Montgomery.

Ward factors potentially come into play, should Chiang appeal any adverse BIA decision.

The district court correctly found, however, that it lacked jurisdiction over

six of the seven plaintiffs' claims because they had not received a denial of their 1-

829 petitions. Because their 1-829 petitions had not been denied, these plaintiffs

lacked standing to attack the precedent decisions, given that the basis for any future 1-829 denial was purely speculative. Nor did the district court err in

17

determining that plaintiffs' motion for class certification was moot. Indeed, plaintiffs failed to timely file their motion, failed to demonstrate that their claims were typical of the class, and class treatment of plaintiffs' claims is unnecessary. Moreover, the district court correctly determined that estoppel did not apply, as there was absolutely no evidence of affirmative misconduct on the part of the government.
In addition, contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, the district court correctly found - and this Court confirmed in RLILP -" that the INS's issuance of the precedent decisions was a legitimate and proper exercise of the agency's authority, exempt from APA rulemaking and notice and comment requirements. Prior to the publication of the precedent decisions, the INS had issued no published decisions or taken any other action that established binding policy with respect to immigrant investor visas. That plaintiffs had received approved 1-526 petitions did not constitute a binding decision by the INS, given the two-step, independent approval process involved in the EB-5 program.
Furthermore, as an examination of the statutory and regulatory language at issue demonstrates, the precedent decisions did not create new regulatory requirements, but rather applied existing requirements to specific sets of facts. As such, the precedent decisions have no retroactive effect. Equally, the normal
18

application of an adjudicatory decision is fully appropriate here, as the Plaintiffs

had no judicially cognizable right to rely on the unpublished, non-binding decisions that had been issued prior to the precedent decisions.
ARGUMENT s

Io

Standard of Review

The appropriate standard of review of a district court's grant of

judgment on the pleadings is de novo. Oscar v. University Students Co-operative

Ass'n, 965 F.2d 783,785 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1020 (1992). Claims

under the APA are also reviewed de novo. See Air North America v. Department

of Transportation, 937 F.2d 1427, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1991). However, to the extent

that plaintiffs also seeks to attack the precedent decisions on the merits, see, e.g., App. Brf. at 45-60, the Court must afford deferential review to the INS's

interpretations of the EB-5 statute and accompanying regulations. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 (1984);

Reno, 113 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (Chevron deference applicable

where statutory language is "silent or ambiguous," and "considerable weight

should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory

5 In the Argument section, the United States incorporates both its crossappeal arguments as well as its response to plaintiffs' opening brief filed with the Court on June 13, 2002.
19

scheme it is entrusted to administer."). See also INS _'. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415,425 (1999) ("[J]udicial deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in the immigration context.").
An agency's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to "substantial deference." Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994); Jenkins v. INS, 108 F.3d 195,201 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the precedent decisions challenged by Plaintiffs must be upheld if they were reasonable - that is -"based on a permissible construction" of the statute. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). The Court may not reverse the decisions because another result might also have been reasonable, or because the Court itself would have decided the issues differently. Id.__a_t . 843 n. 11; see also Department of Health and Human Services v. Chater, 163 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 1998) ("The question is not whether the interpretation represents the best reading of the statute, but whether it represents a reasonable one"); Chan v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Only a clear showing of a contrary congressional intent will justify overruling the agency's interpretation of the statute it is charged with administering") (internal quotation and citation omitted).
20

II. The District Court Erred in Finding Jurisdiction to Review Chiang's 1829 Denial. The district court based its assertion of jurisdiction under the APA to review
the INS's denial of plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 petition on the observation that INA § 216A does not state that review of an 1-829 denial must occur "exclusively" in removal proceedings. (E.R. at 130). However, the correct test is whether section 216A and related provisions of the INA provide adequate judicial review. If so, APA jurisdiction does not arise.
The APA states that "[t]he form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute," unless there is an "absence or inadequacy thereof .... " 5 U.S.C. § 703 (Supp. II 2002); see also id.._§__7. 04 (Supp. II 2002) (judicial review available under the APA where "there is no other adequate remedy in a court"). Where special and specific review procedures are clearly available and are adequate to protect the rights of affected parties, the general authorization for review of agency action in the district courts under the APA is not available, and the specific procedures are considered exclusive notwithstanding that Congress did not provide for their exclusiveness. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988) ("When Congress enacted the APA to provide a general authorization
21

for review of agency action in the district courts, it did not intend that general grant of jurisdiction to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies"); United States v. Southern Railway Co., 364 F.2d 86, 91 (5th Cir. 1966) ; Rhode v. Cit-y of West Lafayette, Indiana, 850 F. Supp. 753,756 (N.D. Ind. 1993) ("General jurisdiction was not intended to vest in district courts without a showing of the inadequacy of the prescribed statutory procedure"); Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F. Supp. 305,309 (N.D. Ohio 1974) ("if Congress has provided adequate procedures for judicial review within a given statutory scheme, the prescribed procedures are exclusive").
Here, INA § 216A clearly specifies that an 1-829 denial is subject to de novo review in a subsequent administrative removal proceeding, and if that proceeding results in issuance of a final order of removal, under INA § 242 the order is subject to review by a circuit court of appropriate jurisdiction. Because Congress has thus provided adequate procedures for judicial review of an 1-829 denial within the relevant statutory scheme, the district court erred in finding jurisdiction under the APA.
It must first be emphasized that Chiang's 1-829 denial did not cause him to face removal from the United States. Rather, removal proceedings must be
22

instituted separately by issuance of a notice to appear, se_._g8e U.S.C. § 1229 (Supp.

II 2002). Chiang's deportability will be decided in the first instance by an

immigration judge, see id. § 1229a(a)(1), and, as section 216A plainly states, he

will have the right to request the immigration judge to review the denial of his

petition and the burden will lie with the INS to prove the correctness of the denial,

id_._§. 1186b(c)(3)(D).

The INS's regulations are consistent with the statutory

scheme: an 1-829 denial by a service center adjudicator may not be appealed

within the Service, but "the alien may seek review of the decision in deportation

proceedings."

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2) (2002). As in any removal proceeding,

Chiang can appeal an adverse decision by the immigration judge to the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), id__:§.§ 3.1 (b) & 240.53(a), and can seek review of

any final order of removal in a circuit court of appropriate jurisdiction pursuant to

section 242 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Supp. II 2002). The explicit linkage between an 1-829 denial and a subsequent removal
proceeding make inapposite those cases where this Court found APA district court

jurisdiction over denials or revocations of other kinds of immigration petitions not

linked to removal proceedings.

See Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843,846-47

(9th

Cir. 1998); Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879, 881-83 (9th Cir. 1997). Given the

independence

of immigration judges and the BIA from the INS, the 1NS's denial of

23

Chiang's 1-829 petition is merely the functional equivalent of a denial by the INS of an asylum application filed by an alien who has not yet been placed in removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.9(a) (2002); Kashani v. Nelson, 793 F.2d 818 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1006 (1986) (alien unable to seek district court review of district director's denial of his asylum claim, but instead required to renew his claim in deportation proceedings, and to exhaust administrative remedies before obtaining judicial review in the court of appeals). Under the regulations, the denial will cause Chiang to be placed in removal proceedings, but section 216A makes it clear that the immigration judge's review of the denial will be de novo, and the same would be true of the BIA. See Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 1991) (BIA is empowered by Congress to "conduct a de novo review of the record, to make its own findings, and to determine independently the sufficiency of the evidence"). Chiang may raise issues of law as well as fact, and is free to argue that the holdings of Izumii were incorrect. Ifa disagreement should come about between the INS and the BIA over the rightness of Izumii., the Attomey General might be called upon to resolve the matter definitively under his general authority to administer and enforce the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 103(a)(1) (Supp. II 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(h)(1) (2002) (describing different ways of referring case to Attorney General).
24

Because the INA §§ 216A/242 judicial review procedures are clearly adequate to re-examine and perhaps overturn any issue of fact or law that underlay Chiang's 1-829 denial, all such issues must be raised in the context of those procedures and may not be raised in a lawsuit under the APA or any other general grant of federal jurisdiction. See City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("all issues concerning the lawfulness of an order subject to statutory review must be raised within the statutory proceeding if that remedy is otherwise adequate"); Frito-Lay, Inc. v. FTC, 380 F.2d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1967) ("Where Congress has provided for an adequate procedure for judicial review of administrative actions, that procedure must be followed"); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. FTC, 546 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1977) (same); Pinkney, 375 F. Supp. at 309. Further, because the INA §§ 216A/242 procedures permit the specialized expertise of immigration judges, the BIA, and perhaps the Attorney General to be brought to bear on the complex issues posed by the immigrant investor program, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent this is another reason to consider these procedures to be the exclusive mechanism for seeking relief from an 1-829 denial. See Whitney National Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411, 420 (1965) ("where Congress has provided statutory review procedures designed to permit agency expertise to be brought to bear on particular problems, those
25

procedures are to be exclusive").
[I]n cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter ought not to be passed over. This is so even though the facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.
Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570, 574-75 (1952).
The district court's finding of jurisdiction would allow Chiang to challenge
his 1-829 denial immediately under the APA (with circuit court review), and then,
if he is unsuccessful, to try again in immigration court once he is placed in
removal proceedings (again, with circuit court review). There is no indication that
Congress intended to give aliens with 1-829 denials the extraordinary privilege of
two chances to overturn the denial, or the only slightly less extraordinary privilege
of being able to choose whether to seek review in district court or immigration
court. On the contrary, to quote again from Bowen, "[w]hen Congress enacted the
APA to provide a general authorization for review of agency action in the district
courts, it did not intend that general grant of jurisdiction to duplicate the
26

previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies."

487 U.S. at 903. By the same token, the APA should not be read to provide a

duplicative or alternate grant of jurisdiction to the subsequently established special

statutory procedures relating to review of 1-829 denials. The district court's

finding of jurisdiction to review the denial of Chiang's 1-829 denial should be

reversed, and its order remanding the denial to the INS should be vacated.

III. The District Court Separately Erred By Remanding the Denial of

Chiang's 1-829 Petition for a "Retroactivity"

Analysis Pursuant to

Montgomery Ward.

Even if the district court were correct in asserting jurisdiction to review the

INS's denial of Chiang's 1-829 petition for permanent resident status, it separately

erred by ordering the INS to consider on remand whether application of the Izumii holdings to Chiang would be unfairly "retroactive" under the factors enumerated in

Montgomery_ Ward. This Court has already resolved that issue as a result of its

holding (issued several months after the district court's order) in RLILP that Izumii

and the other EB-5 precedent decisions did not effect a change in existing law.

More generally, the retroactivity concerns addressed in Montgomery_ Ward are not

applicable to the immigrant investor statutes, which require a fresh demonstration of

compliance with the statutory standards at the 1-829 stage and do not permit the INS

to consider hardship and other equitable factors in determining whether to grant

27

permanent resident status. It is an elementary fact that, by its nature and in contradistinction from a
rulemaking, the final result of an adjudicatory proceeding will have a retroactive effect on the positions of the parties to that proceeding. The courts, moreover, have recognized that "[e]very case of first impression has a retroactive effect, whether the new principle is announced by a court or an agency." SECv. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 203 (1947).
Nevertheless, there is a line of agency review decisions that concerns whether an adjudicatory agency decision that announced an interpretation of a statute or regulation should be ruled inapplicable for equitable reasons to the losing party before the agency, notwithstanding that the agency's interpretation was reasonable, its findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, and the decision did not represent an abuse of agency discretion and otherwise met all relevant standards for judicial affirmation. The leading case in this circuit is Montgomery_ Ward, which adopted a test articulated by the District of Columbia Circuit in Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C. Cir. 1972):
Among the considerations that enter into a resolution of the problem are (1) whether the particular case is one of first impression, (2) whether the new rule results in an abrupt departure from well established practice or merely attempts to fill a void in an unsettled area of law, (3) the extent to which the party against whom the new rule is applied relied on the former rule, (4) the
28

degree of the burden which a retroactive order imposes on a party, and (5) the statutory interest in applying a new rule despite the reliance of a party on the old standard. In Montgomery_ Ward, the court generally upheld an FTC decision that Ward's had violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and an implementing regulation, but found that enforcement of the FTC's remedy, a cease and desist order, would be unreasonably burdensome on the company. 691 F.2d at 1333-34. Before the district court, the United States argued that the INS is not empowered under INA § 216A to take the Montgomery Ward factors into consideration in determining whether to grant an 1-829 application. Without discussion, the district court rejected that argument. (E.R. at 139). In its motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), the government additionally argued that, to the extent it is appropriate at all in the context of the EB-5 statute, the Montgomery Ward test should only be part of circuit court review of a final order of removal. The district court rejected that argument as well, again without discussion. (E.R. at 158). Chiang was not a party to Izumii and for that reason alone Montgomery_ Ward is inapplicable. Without acknowledging that fact, the district court found that the INS "effectively changed the rules of the game" by adjudicating Chiang's 1-829 petition under the guidance of Izumii. (E.R. at 138.) Subsequent to the district court's order, however, this Court held in RLILP that Izumii and the other EB-5
29

precedent decisions did not "effect a change in existing law[,]" 86 F. Supp.2d at 1024; that the holdings of the precedent decisions were analogous to interpretive rules "which merely clarify or explain existing law or regulations[,]" id., Powderly v. Schweiker, 704 F.2d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 1983); that the unpublished immigrant investor adjudications and General Counsel memoranda which preceded the precedent decisions did not establish a policy binding upon the INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1022; that the INS therefore did not abuse its discretion by disapproving an 1529 petition under the authority of the precedent decisions even though, prior to the issuance of the precedent decisions, it had approved four substantively identical petitions, id. at 1021-22; and that the four earlier approvals were mistakes which the INS was free to correct, id. at 1024-25.
Therefore, Chiang's 1-829 denial did not represent the application of a "new rule" in the Montgomery_ Ward sense by being based on Izumii. Moreover, Montgomery_ Ward's concerns about a "retroactive" order are incongruent with the two-stage process of the immigrant investor statutes for obtaining unconditional lawful permanent resident status. Initial 1-526 approval does not in any way guarantee, or even predict, final 1-829 approval, and it does not represent a determination of eligibility that the alien is entitled to rely upon. The two petitions undergo entirely separate and independent adjudications, and section 216A of the
3o

INA mandates denial of the 1-829 petition if the Attomey General concludes that the

alien did not invest the requisite capital or failed to maintain that investment

throughout the period of his conditional residency. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(C),

(d)(1)(B) & (C) (Supp. II 2002). This provides clear notice to an alien like Chiang

who obtains 1-526 approval that he has been granted resident status on only a

conditional basis and that he will have to demonstrate compliance with the statutory

standards again - not just that he complied with the terms of his investment plan -

when he files an 1-829 petition for unconditional status. Where, prior to the filing of

the 1-829 petition, the Attorney General, acting through his delegates at the INS,

publishes a binding interpretation of the statutory standards, which - as this Court

found in RLILP - does not make new law or create new standards but merely

explains existing law, the 1-829 petition may be adjudicated under the guidance of

the interpretation without raising concerns about unfair retroactivity. See R_.egions

Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448, 456 (1998) (HHS Secretary's "reaudit" regulation

for certain Medicare costs not impermissibly retroactive, because it called for

correct application of "c0st-reimbursement

principles in effect at the time the costs

were incurred..., not the application of any new reimbursement pi'inciples");

compare Landgrafv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 270 (1994) ("The

conclusion that a particular rule operates 'retroactively' comes at the end of a

31

process of judgment concerning the nature and extent of the change in the law and
the degree of connection between the operation of the new rule and a relevant past
event"); see also id__a_t_,269 ("A statute does not operate 'retrospectively' merely
because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute's enactment...").6
To the extent that "burden" should be considered at all if there is no "new
rule," it should first be noted that the burden of Chiang's 1-829 denial is greatly alleviated by the fact that he can ask for his money back from the limited
partnership, since RLILP and Izumii confirm that the relationship between Chiang
and the partnership is that of lender and debtor. See 86 F. St/pp. 2d at 1022-23.
More generally, to the extent that Chiang and the other individual plaintiffs really did sever all their ties with their home countries and moved their families to the
United States after receiving approval of their first-stage 1-526 petitions, see App.
6 To obtain 1-829 approval, the alien must show that his qualifying business enterprise succeeded long enough so that the required number of jobs were created over the two-year period of conditional residence. See 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(iv), (c)(1)(iv) (2002). Even if the alien tries his best, his 1-829 petition must be denied if the statutory job-creation requirement was not sustained over the entire two-year period. This is another indication that obtaining 1-526 approval does not create legitimate "reliance" on .obtaining unconditional permanent resident status two years later. The future is even more unpredictable for aliens, such as Chiang, who entered the EB-5 program as limited partners, since such persons have limited influence, and no control, over the business enterprise.
32

Brf. at 2, they did not do so on the basis of any assurances from the INS that approval of their 1-829 petitions was just a matter of time. The EB-5 program offers a significant reward - the right to jump ahead in the line for a visa to enter the United States - but its risk is commensurately significant. If the alien is unable to demonstrate compliance with the statutory standards when he files again at the 1829 stage, he must return home. Given that fact, any advice given to the individual plaintiffs that they could safely abandon their previous lives was very bad advice indeed, but it did not come from the INS.
Furthermore, the district court's holding is tantamount to a finding that the Attorney General has discretion to waive a failure by the petitioning alien to meet the capital investment requirement of the immigrant investor statutes, if otherwise an undue burden would be placed on the alien. However, the strict wording of INA § 216A, which states that the Attorney General "shall" deny a deficient 1-829 petition, is to the contrary. "Shall" denotes a mandatory intent on the part of Congress. See., e.__., United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 607 (1989); Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 485 (1947). No provision for a hardship waiver- or an accounting of"burden" - was included in the statute. By way of instructive comparison, Congress has provided for hardship waivers in a closely analogous context. Section 216 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a (Supp. II 2002), the
33

provision goveming permanent resident status for, among other things, alien
spouses granted conditional permanent residency, provides for a hardship waiver in
the event that the alien fails to meet certain marriage requirements. Id__§__.
1186a(c)(4) (Supp. II 2002); see also 8 C.F.R. § 216.5 (2002). Potential EB-5
applicants were warned by the INS in the proposed rulemaking for 1-829
applications that this difference existed and that the INS lacked authority to grant
hardship waivers for 1-829 applicants. See 59 Fed. Reg. 1317 (1994). 7
Arguably, this Court could consider the Montgomery_ Ward factors de novo if
it is eventually called upon to review a final order of removal entered against
Chiang. The courts have indicated that they act appropriately in that role but have
never required agencies to undertake a Montgomery_ Ward analysis in the first
instance. See Retail, Wholesale, 466 F.2d at 390 (striking balance between interest
7 59 Fed. Reg. 1317 (1994), states, in pertinent part:
The Service explored the possibility of establishing by regulation some form of hardship waiver similar to that set forth at 8 CFR 216.5 for removal of conditions for certain alien spouses and sons and daughters. The Service has concluded that such a waiver cannot, consistent with the statute, be created by regulation for alien entrepreneurs. Section 216A(c)(3)(C) of the Act sets out a mandatory instruction: The Attorney General shall terminate the permanent resident status of an alien entrepreneur who has failed to comply with the requirements for removal of conditions. Unlike section 216, section 216A of the Act does not provide for a waiver of these requirements in cases of hardship.
34

of party in avoiding application of agency's rule and interest of agency in applying

rule "is in each case a question of law, resolvable by reviewing courts with no

overriding obligation of deference to the agency decision...").

The district court

clearly erred in requiring the INS to consider on remand the Montgomery_ Ward

factors in determining whether Chiang's 1-829 petition should be granted or denied.

Since that was the only reason for the remand, this Court should vacate the remand

order even if it should conclude that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the

order.

IV. The District Court Correctly Determined That the Claims of Six of the Seven Named Plaintiffs Were Not Ripe for Review.

To date, of the seven named plaintiffs in the First Amended Complaint, only Chiang has actually received a denial of his 1-829 petition. (App. Brf. at 13). For that reason, the district court correctly determined that "[the six remaining] Plaintiffs' APA claims are not ripe until completion of the administrative proceedings," and that "[r]efusing to review Plaintiffs' cases until their 1-829

petitions are actually denied does not foreclose all avenues of review, as Plaintiffs may once again raise their claims if and when those 1-829 petitions are denied." (E.R. at 129.)

It is well settled that the presumption of available judicial review under the

35

APA is subject to the prudential limitations of standing and ripeness. See Abbott Laboratories v. GardneL 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967). Moreover, where, as here, plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory judgment remedies, the Supreme Court has recognized that because such remedies "are discretionary ... courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply them to administrative determinations unless these arise in the context of a controversy 'ripe' for judicial resolution," which is to say that the effects of the administrative action challenged have been "felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties." Id_._a_t . 148-49.
In this case, there has been no concrete action applying the EB-5 regulations at issue in Izumii to the six plaintiffs' individual cases (other than Chiang) that is ripe for this Court to review. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 891 (1990) (a controversy concerning a regulation is not ordinarily ripe for review under the APA until the regulation has been applied to the claimant's situation by concrete action). See also Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 5859 (1993) (holding that class member's claim would ripen only once he took the affirmative steps that he could take before the INS blocked his path by applying the regulation to him). In similar situations to these six plaintiffs, the Supreme Court has held that a challenge to a regulation, the impact of which could not "be said to be felt immediately by those subject to it in conducting their day-to-day affairs,"
36

would not be ripe before the regulation was actually applied to the complainant in a concrete fashion since "no irremediab[ly] adverse consequences flow[ed] from requiring a later challenge." Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 164 (1967).
At present, these six plaintiffs have the status of conditional permanent residents in the United States. It is only in the event that the INS applies the precedent decisions to deny an 1-829 petition filed by one of these plaintiffs that the plaintiff will have the requisite "concrete action" and "injury" to make a "retroactivity" claim ripe. In the meantime, any ruling by this Court on whether whether the INS may or may not apply the precedent decisions to Plaintiffs' 1-829 petitions would be an improper advisory ruling on a non-justiciable claim. See NLRB v. Food Store Employees Union, 417 U.S. 1, 10 n.10 (1974) (an agency entrusted with administration of a statute should decide questions ofretroactivity in the first instance).
Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish their case from Catholic Social Services by citing Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1994), and arguing that there is no doubt that their 1-829 petitions will be denied under the precedent decisions, and that this certainty is "sufficient to create a ripe controversy." (App. Brf. at 24-25). This is incorrect. Plaintiffs cannot be certain that their 1-829
37

petitions will be denied, and if so, of the basis for the denial. Although the INS may deny the plaintiffs' 1-829 petitions based on the precedent decisions, the INS may alternatively base a denial on different grounds. See Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. at 59 (possibility of alternative reasons for potential denials makes it much more difficult to predict firmly that the INS would deny a particular application by virtue of the challenged rule, and not by virtue of some other, unchallenged rule that it determined barred an adjustment of status.)
We demonstrated above that an adequate avenue for judicial review already exists (see Part II, infra). The appropriate role for this Court is to await the filing of a petition for review by an alien who received an 1-829 denial and then a final order of removal. That person could be Chiang, or one of the other six plaintiffs, or perhaps someone else. The issues put before the Court would be delineated by the issues properly exhausted by the alien before the immigration judge and the BIA, and then raised in the alien's principal brief. A conclusion by this Court that the district court could hear the claims of the other six aliens would be based on speculative and assumed facts, would be contrary to the general principals of ripeness and standing described above, and would violate the doctrine of
38

administrative exhaustion of remedies. 8 Therefore, these plaintiffs' challenge to the "retroactive" application of the precedent decisions to their individual cases is not

ripe, and the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain - let alone remedy - the claim. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 114 (1976). V. The District Court Properly Determined that Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification Was Mooted.

In its decision, the district court determined that "[i]n light of our ruling,

Plaintiffs' Motions for Class Certification...

[is] mooted." (E.R. at 142-143; 155-

156.) Because the district court correctly determined that only one plaintiff, Chiang, had ripe claims, it followed that plaintiffs' motion for class certification was moot.

Absent actual injury in the form of an 1-829 denial, the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the precedent decisions. See Part IV, infra. Further, plaintiffs concede that of the named plaintiffs, only "Plaintiff Chiang has received a denial of his 1-829 petition." (App. Brf. at 13). Indeed, of the putative 250 class members, only a

8 Plaintiffs assert that their claims are ripe "because the disputed issues are primarily legal," and "because they will suffer hardship if the Court declines to consider the issue." (App. Brf. at 29.) These assertions, however, are irrelevant to whether ripeness has been achieved. Instead, as correctly held by the district court, "Plaintiffs' APA claims are not ripe until completion of the administrative proceedings [and a denial of their 1-829 petition]." See Catholic Social Services, 509 U.S. at 42.
39

handful have received 1-829 denials. Id..__,. Moreover, even if the district court had not held the motion for class
certification to be moot, plaintiffs failed to satisfy the prerequisites for class certification. 9 In order to certify a class, all the prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and at least one subsection of Rule 23(b) must be satisfied. To justify certification, Rule 23(a) requires that: (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). The Court must conduct a rigorous analysis of these prerequisites before certifying a class, General Tel. Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1983), and failure to satisfy any one of the prerec]uisites of Rule 23(a) requires denial of class certification, Rutledge v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 1975). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that all of the prerequisites for class certification have been met. Mantolete v. Bolg__, 767 F.2d 1416, 1424 (9th Cir. 1985).
9 It should also be noted that the motion for class certification was untimely under the district court's local rules, and plaintiffs failed to establish "excusable neglect" justifying their late motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928, 931-32 (9th Cir. 1994).
4O

In this case, the named plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their claims are typical of the class; thus, they cannot adequately represent the interests of the unnamed class members. A court must "carefully scrutinize the adequacy of representation in all class actions." Lubin v. Sybedon Corp., 688 F. Supp. 1425, 1461 (S.D. Cal. 1988) (citing Rutledge v. Elec. Hose & Rubber Co., 511 F.2d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 1975)). Additionally, the named plaintiffs' interests must align with those of the proposed class in order to satisfy this requirement. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs claimed that named and unnamed class members have in common their challenges to the validity of Izumii and the other three precedent decisions issued by the INS. (E.R. at 31-32). In essence, however, the plaintiffs are challenging the substantive holdings of the precedent decisions "as applied" to individual plaintiffs and the financing structure of their investment agreements with the parmership plaintiffs. In other words, not a single named plaintiff has standing to challenge the validity of those precedent decisions "as applied" to other individuals, as the application may vary in each case. The named plaintiffs therefore, do not have claims "typical" of the proposed class and are not adequate representatives who can vigorously pursue the interests of the proposed class members. Therefore, even if the district court had not determined that plaintiffs'
41

motion for class certification had been mooted by its decision, certification, in any event, should have been denied.
Furthermore, even assuming plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of Rule 23, certification of the proposed class was still unwarranted. Simply meeting the technical requirements of Rule 23 does not entitle plaintiffs to certification of their proposed class; rather, the decision to grant or deny class action certification is committed to the court's discretion. See Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, in addition to Rule 23, the district court was required to consider the propriety of maintaining any proposed class.
Class certification as a matter of discretion was not warranted here because class treatment of plaintiffs' claims is unnecessary. In short, denying class certification would not deprive any of the individual plaintiffs of access to judicial review because they may still seek review of any future denial of their 1-829 petitions in removal proceedings. See Part II, infra. Indeed, if plaintiffs wait until they are issued an actual denial, they may make better use of the judicial review process because they will know to a certainty the basis for the INS's denials of their petitions.
The Court may end its consideration of this appeal and cross-appeal at this
42

point. Plaintiffs have not appealed the district court's conclusion that the partnership plaintiffs lacked standing; their arguments with respect to standing are concerned only with the individual alien plaintiffs. See App. Br. at 23-30. As demonstrated above, the claims of plaintiff Chiang should be considered by this Court if and when Chiang files a petition for review of a final order of removal entered against him, and the same is doubly true of the other six individual plaintiffs, who do not even have 1-829 denials yet. The arguments that follow are, therefore, protective in nature and need not be considered at all if the Court agrees with our analysis. VI. The District Court Correctly Determined that Plaintiffs' Estoppel Claim
Failed Because There Was No Showing of Affirmative Misconduct by the Government. The district court below stated that "the INS has in no way violated its own rules, nor has it made any affirmative misrepresentations or concealments." (E.R. at 141). The Court should affirm the district court's determination that plaintiffs' estoppel claim failed because they failed to demonstrate affirmative misconduct on the part of the Service. "[I]t is well-settled that the Government may not be estopped on the same terms as any other litigant." Heckler v. Community Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 60 (1984). A party seeking to assert estoppel against the government must demonstrate
43

that the govemment engaged in some sort of"affirmative misconduct," that was
beyond negligence, OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 421 (1990), and which
requires "an affirmative misrepresentation or affirmative concealment by the
government .... " Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707 (9th Cir.
1989) (per curiam), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 957 (1990). Even then, "estoppel will
only apply where the government's wrongful act will cause a serious injustice, and
the public's interest will not suffer undue damage by imposition of the liability."
Wagner v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 847 F.2d 515, 519
(9th Cir. 1988) ( uogo_9_!kM_ organ v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 544, 545 (9th Cir. 1985)).
In this case, there is no allegation that the INS applied or will apply the
precedent decisions to plaintiffs for an improper purpose or has acted wilfully or
recklessly to deprive plaintiffs of any rights.l° In RLILP., this Court reviewed the
ro Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion that they have "properly asserted a prima facie claim for estoppel" (App. Brf. at 33), plaintiffs put forth no claims in the First Amended Complaint, which, if taken as true, would establish affirmative misconduct on the part of the government. Bald claims that the INS engaged in "wrongful acts and affirmative misconduct," (E.R. at 76, ¶ 142) are insufficient to meet Plaintiffs' burden to survive a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981) (the Court need not "assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations."); Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Communication Servs.., 907 F.Supp. 1361, 1381 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ("The court need not accept as true conclusory allegations or legal characterizations.").
44

entire history of the EB-5 program and the INS's corrective measures culminating in the precedent decisions, and concluded that "[t]here is no showing that the INS acted wilfully or recklessly to deprive Plaintiffs of any rights." 86 F. Supp.2d at 1027; see also Mukherjee v. INS, 793 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that an immigration official's assurance to plaintiff that he was not subject to a two-year residency requirement did not constitute affirmative misconduct when there was no indication that the official lied or there was a pattern of "affirmative misconduct"). The same result is warranted here.
Although the INS may have approved the 1-829 petitions of other aliens with investment structures similar to Plaintiffs' prior to the issuance of the precedent decisions, those approvals were unpublished, had no precedential authority whatsoever, and did not create a reliance interest for which plaintiffs can seek judicial protection. See Burns v. United States, 974 F.2d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing policy reasons for not publishing court decisions, and rejecting argument that an unpublished opinion was basis for "nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel" against government); cf. Seldovia Native Ass'n, Inc. v. Lujan, 904 F.2d 1135, 1137 (9th Cir. 1990) (no equitable estoppel against Secretary of Interior despite contrary written assurances from Undersecretary and Department Solicitor)..
The most that can be said in this case is that, before Izumii and the other 45

precedent decisions, the INS failed to understand the true nature of some of the investment plans presented to it and mistakenly approved petitions based on those

plans. Plaintiffs do not allege, and certainly there is no evidence, that the INS's errors were deliberately made in order to mislead anyone. Moreover, the Supreme

Court has emphasized that administrative agencies must be left free to correct earlier mistakes. NLRB v. Seven-Up Co., 344 U.S. 344, 349 (1953) ("'Cumulative

experience' begets understanding and insight by which judgments..,

are validated

or qualified or invalidated. The constant process of trial and error, on a wider and

fuller scale than a single adversary litigation permits, differentiates perhaps more

than anything else the administrative from the judicial process"); see RLILP, 86 F.

Supp. 2d at 1024-25 (commenting that the process of trial and error through

unpublished adjudication "is precisely why unpublished decisions do not create precedent").
The fact that the INS, or individual agency officers, at one time considered

promulgating new regulations, but then chose to proceed by way of adjudication

does not constitute affirmative misconduct. Indeed, ultimately under the APA, it was within the INS's discretion to choose to administer the EB-5 statute via

adjudication, rather than rulemaking. RLILp, 86 F. Supp.2d at 1026, citing NLRB

v. Bell Aerospace, 416 U.S. 267, 294 (1974). Any opinions to the contrary or
46

private expressions of a preference for rulemaking by INS officials were never

binding on the INS and therefore may not be claimed as a source of misleading

assurances. RLILP, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1022 ("General Counsel opinions are

advisory in nature and do not bind the INS. * * *Even apart from its advisory

nature, the General Counsel opinion referred to by Plaintiffs was not a statement on

which Plaintiffs were entitled to rely"); see also Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota),

517 U.S. 735,743 (1996) (opinion letter of agency's deputy chief counsel

insufficient to establish binding agency policy, even though letter was published in

trade periodical); Price v. Akaka, 3 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 1993) ("an Attorney

General's opinion cannot by itself establish 'clearly established law'"). Finally, RLILP holds that the INS's precedent decisions did not effect a

change in existing law. 86 F. Supp.2d at 1024. If, in reviewing the EB-5 program,

considering the issues raised by the cases that formed the basis for the precedent decisions, and publishing those decisions, the INS "was not contravening any

statute, regulation, or published decision[,]" id., then there is no basis for plaintiffs'

contention that it was affirmativemisconduct

for the INS to "(a) approve the

individual Plaintiffs' [I-526 petitions] and admit them to begin new lives in this

country; (b) misinform the Plaintiffs that any changes to the immigrant investor law

would be made in a prospective manner through notice and comment rule making;
47

and (c) conceal from the Plaintiffs the Defendant's true intent to retroactively apply the new criteria to the Plaintiffs' previously approved investments" (App. Brf. at 35). There were no "changes to the immigrant investor law" and there are no "new criteria." VII. This Court Has Determined That the Issuance of the Precedent Decisions
Did Not Violate the APA and Plaintiffs' Attempts to Distinguish Their Case Must Fail. This Court's decision in RLILP unambigously stated that "the INS's issuance of the precedent decisions... [did not] involve[] rulemaking [subject to the APA's notice and comment requirements]." 86 F.Supp. 2d at 1024. Further buttressing the Court's decision was the fundamental premise that "it would be ridiculous to require the INS to grant a petition because it had previously granted a similar petition by mistake." Id____. Plaintiffs argue that RLILP is not applicable because it did not concern the application of the holdings of Izumii to persons whose financing arrangements received 1-526 approvals before issuance of that decision. See App. Brf. at 52. Plaintiffs' radical position is that the INS is required under the APA to approve 1829 petitions that, under binding precedent, fail to fulfill the requirements of the EB-5 statute.
Plaintiffs' argument may be disposed of quickly. Section 203(b)(5) of the
48

INA and its implementing regulations have been in place, unchanged, since 1991. In RLILP, the Court held that the INS did not violate the APA when it explained and interpreted the requirements of section 203(b)(5) and its regulations in the precedent decisions. Section 216A of the INA states that adjudication of an 1-829 petition requires an examination of the petitioner's compliance with the statutory requirements. However, section 216A does not contain its own requirements, but instead refers back to the underlying requirements of section 203(b)(5). If the INS did not violate the APA in clarifying and interpreting the requirements of section 203(b)(5) in the precedent decisions, it follows that it would not violate the APA by applying those same requirements - as interpreted and clarified - in adjudications under section 216A.
The government otherwise will not take up the Court's time by rearguing general APA issues that were thoroughly briefed - and decided - in RLILP. We rely on RLILP_ as controlling precedent for the propositions that the INS had legitimate discretion to explain the requirements of the EB-5 program through adjudication rather than further rulemaking, 86 F. Supp.2d at 1026; that the precedent decisions neither exceeded the scope of existing law nor contradicted binding precedent, id. at 1024; that the precedent decisions did not conflict or improperly expand the existing regulations but rather interpreted those regulations,
49

id..._a_t , 1022; that no "binding policy" existed before the precedent decisions other

than the policy decisions represented by the existing statute and regulation, id__;__th. at

unpublished adjudications of 1-526 or 1-829 petitions are not binding and have no

precedential value, id__a_t, 1024-25; and that internal INS memoranda and e-mails are

not binding policy statements upon which the plaintiffs were entitled to rely, id__a_t_, 1022. In the remainder of this brief, we will concentrate on the one APA-related

issue, already discussed in other contexts above, that was not directly present in

RLILP: the nature and scope ofi-829 approval.

VIII. The INS Did Not Amend the Scope of Inquiry To Be Undertaken Adjudication of an 1-829 Petition.

in the

Plaintiffs contend that the "INS is amending the regulations by broadening

the scope of inquiry to be undertaken during the 1-829 adjudication." (App. Brf. at

57). This statement is inaccurate. As noted above, the grant of permanent resident

status under the EB-5 program is a two-step process. If an alien's 1-526 petition is

approved, the alien is granted conditional permanent resident status only.

Thereafter, the alien is required to file an 1-829 petition before the second

anniversary of his admission. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(a)(1). The petition will be granted if the INS determines that the alien met and sustained the required investment and entrepreneurial activities throughout the period of his residence in the United States.

50

Id__a_t _1.186b(d)(1). Alternatively, if the INS determinesthat the alien did not invest

the required capital, or did not invest a commercial enterprise, or failed to sustain

both of these activities throughout the period of his conditional residence in the

United States, the 1-829 petition must be denied and the alien's permanent resident

status must be terminated. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(C) and (d)(1).

As such, the alien's investment must be fully assessedat each stage of the EB-

5 program. Plaintiffs' argument that the "I-829 adjudication does not proceed ab

initio and is not designed to second guess the firstadjudication"

(App. Brf. at 58)

misses the mark and is based on the false premise that, having obtained approval of

their 1-526 petitions, plaintiffs inevitably would have obtained approval of their 1-

829 petitions (and removal of the condition on their lawful resident status), were it

not for the issuance of the precedent decisions. This is not so. Approval of an 1-526

petition does not predict, let alone promise, approval of an 1-829 petition. Approval

of the 1-526 petition means only that the alien, at the start of his two-year period of

conditional residency, was prepared to make the appropriate investment and had put together a complete and promising business plan for his "new commercial

enterprise." See generally 8 C.F.R. § 204.60) (2002) (requirements for 1-526

petition). However, if, subsequent to approval, the alien encounters adverse

business conditions and, despite his best efforts, fails to maintain his investment 51

throughout his conditional residency or fails to create the statutorily required number of full-time jobs, his 1-829 petition musi be denied. See 8 U.S.C. §

1186b(b)(1), (c)(3)(C) (Supp. II 2002); 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c) (2002). Such denial is mandated simply because the job-creation purpose of section 203(b)(5) was not met. Compare Montgomery. Ward, 691 F.2d at 1332-33 (noting that FTC had "wide latitude" in determining appropriate scope of adjudicatory order).
Hence, an alien who leaves his home country and takes up conditional residence in the United States under the immigrant investor program is making a bet that his commercial enterprise will succeed at least long enough to obtain 1-829 approval and removal of the condition on his permanent resident status. That bet is

risky because the success of the enterprise could be dependent upon factors beyond the alien's control, such as a sudden downturn in the national economy, local labor

strife, raw materials shortages, natural disasters, and so on. While the alien may be prepared to take the risk in order to jump ahead in the visa. line thanks to the preference offered by section 203(b)(5), the point is that, given the risk of business failure, it is unwise for any alien to sever ties with his home country simply because

his 1-526 petition was approved. The only prudent course is to limit physical,

financial, and family commitments to the United States until 1-829 approval and

unconditional

permanent resident status are obtained. 52

That is doubly true for the individual alien plaintiffs here because they obtained their 1-526 approvals as limited partners. These aliens rested their hopes of obtaining 1-829 approval on enterprises over which they have scant influence and no control. The success or failure of the enterprises lies in the hands of the aliens' general partners. The immigrant investor regulations permit 1-526 petitions by aliens who propose to act as limited partners in the job-creating commercial enterprise, see 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j)(5)(iii) (2000), but the fact remains that such aliens have little to do with whether the enterprise actually creates any jobs. Under such circumstances, there is no reasonable basis for the contention that approval of the 1-526 petitions filed by the Plaintiffs created a legally cognizable expectation on their part that 1-829 approval was just a matter of time.
Thus, the EB-5 statute and regulations provide for a two-year conditional permanent l:esident status, but does not guarantee investors that they will obtain lawful permanent resident status at the end of that two year period. At the end of thatperiod, the aliens' investments must be reassessed to ensure that they comport with the requirements of the statute. The precedent decisions clarified the statutory requirements, and these requirements are in effect whether assessing an 1-526 petition, or in reviewing an 1-829 petition. There is absolutely no basis in the statute for plaintiffs' assertion that the INS's inquiry into 1-829 petitions is of "narrow
53

scope." (App. Brf. at 59). In fact, the statute specifically provides for a catchall termination of conditional status if there is a finding that the qualifying enterprise is improper. See INA § 216A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(b)(1)(C) (providing for termination of status if the alien was otherwise not conforming to the requirements of section 203(b)(5)"). Further, plaintiffs mischaracterize the so-called "pro forma nature" of the review of the 1-829 petition, stating that "suggested evidence for the formation of the commercial enterprise is simply federal income tax returns." (App. Brf. at 59). Instead, in its entirety, the applicable regulation provides that the alien must provide "[e]vidence that a commercial enterprise was established by the alien. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, Federal income tax returns." 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(a)(4)(i) (2002) (emphasis added).
In short, there is no support, either in the statue or the regulations, for plaintiffs' contention that the scope of inquiry at the 1-829 stage is "pro forma" and "narrow." (App. Brf. at 58-59). Instead, the INS was always, and continues to be, under the obligation to ensure that the statutory requirements of the EB-5 program are met. These requirements include the definitions and statutory requirements outlined in the precedent decisions, and are applicable to potential immigrant investors, whether they are at the initial stage of filing a 1-526 petition, or at the secondary stage of attempting to remove their conditional residency status via the
54

filing of an 1-829. Simply because the INS may have wrongly approved certain I526 petitions that it later determined did not comply with the requirements of the statute does not preclude the Service from rectifying its mistake and denying aliens' 1-829 petitions where those aliens' investments were not in compliance with the EB5 program. As this Court said in RLILP:
Administrative agencies make mistakes; they should be allowed to correct those errors. * * * It would be ridiculous to require the INS to grant a petition because it had previously granted a similar petition by mistake. That is precisely why unpublished decisions do not create precedent. 86 F. Supp.2d at 1024.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should hold that: (1) the District Court erred in concluding it had jurisdiction over the denial of Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 petition; and (2) further erred in finding this Court's Montgomery_ Ward balancing test applicable to PlaintiffChiang's 1-829 denial. The Court should, however, dismiss Plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's decision granting Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to: (1) the dismissal of those Plaintiffs' who had not yet received 1-829 denials, and whose claims were therefore not ripe;
55

(2) the dismissal of Plaintiffs' estoppel claim against the govemment; (3) the dismissal of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as moot; (4) the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the APA.
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM Assistant Attorney General JOHN C. CUNNINGHAM S_ni_ Litigation Counsel

Date: August 6, 2002

v
HEATHER PHILLIPS Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 616-9343
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee

56

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 28-2.6(c), counsel for Respondent statesthat she is not aware of any cases currently pending before the Court that raises issues that are the same as, or closely related to, those presented in this case.

Dated: August 6, 2002

I_ATHER R. PHILLIPS

Attorney
Office of Immigration Civil Division

Litigation

Department of Justice

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32(a)(7)(B), I certify that the Respondent's Brief is: (1) double-spaced, (2) proportionately spaced in Times New Roman, 14 point, non-script typeface, and (3) excluding the certificate of related cases, certificate of service, and certificate of compliance, contains 13,291 words.

DATED: August 6, 2002

HEATHER R. PHILLIPS Attorney Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division Department of Justice

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 6th day of August, 2002, I caused two copies of

the foregoing "Brief for Defendant-Appellee"

to be served upon Plaintiffs-

Appellants' c6unsel by having them placed in the Department of Justice mailroom in

sufficient time for same day mailing, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to:

Ira J. Kurzban,

Esq.

2650 SW 27th Ave., 2nd

Miami,

FL 33133

Floor

Marc 180 San

Van Der Hout,

Sutter Street,

Francisco,

CA

Esq. Fifth 94104

Floor

"f_t_ATHERI_ I_HILLIPS

Attorney
Office of Immigration Civil Division

Litigation

U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Washington, D.C. 20044 (202)616-4868

Station

 
 Nos. 01-56266 and 01-56379

._

_ 8_

_

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEN-WAN CHANG, et ai., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
Vo
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District for the Central District of California Civil Action No. CV-99-10518-GHK

Court

REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

ROBERT D. McCALLUM,

JR.

Assistant Attorney General

M. JOCELYN LOPEZ WRIGHT Senior Litigation Counsel

JOHN C. CUNNINGHAM

Senior Litigation Counsel

Office of Immigration

Litigation

Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 878, Ben Franklin

Station

Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-0601

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

This Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear the Cross-Appeal .................................

2

II. District Court Jurisdiction Over Chlang's 1-829 Denial Is Not Required

Either To Remedy Immediate Harm to Chlang or To Provide Full

Protection of Chiang's Raghts ........................................................................

6

III. A Montgomery Ward Analysm Has Been Mooted By R. L. Investment and,

m Any Event, Is Not for the INS to Consider .............................................

11

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................

18

ATTACHMENT

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988) ..............................................................................
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) ......................................................................................
Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) ....................................................................................
Chugach Alaska Corp. v. Lujan, 915 F.2d 454 (9th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................
Cohen v. Beneficial Indusmal Loans Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) ......................................................................................
Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1969) ...........................................................................
Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997) ...............................................................
Darby v. Clsneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) ......................................................................................
Davis-McKee, Inc., 238 N.L.R.B. 652 (1978) .............................................................................
Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507 (1950) ......................................................................................
Eisen v. Carhsle & Jacquehn, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) ......................................................................................

13, 14 7
10 3, 5
2 3 13, 14 6 15 2 2

ii

Eluska v. Andrus,

587 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1978) .........................................................................

5

Gillespie v. U. S. Steel Corp.,

379 U.S. 148 (1964) ......................................................................................

2

Gold v. Weinberger,

473 F.2d 1376 (5th Cir. 1973) .......................................................................

3

INS v. Chadha,

462 U.S. 919 (1983) ....................................................................................

10

Indianapolis Power & Light,

273 N.L.R.B. 1715 (1985) ...........................................................................

14

Kaho v. Ilcher!.,

765 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1985) .........................................................................

3

Lising v. INS,

124 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 1997) .........................................................................

7

McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center,

498 U.S. 479 (1991) ....................................................................................

11

Montgomery_ Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982) ..........................................................

2, passim

Naranjo-Aguilera v. INS,

30 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................

10

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. NLRB,

842 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1988) .....................................................................

14

Patel v. INS,

638 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................

10

Pence v. Kleppe,

529 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1976) .........................................................................

5

lii

R, L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS, 273 F.2d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. HI. 2000) ............. 4, passim

Regents of the University of California v. Heckler,

756 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1985) .......................................................................

4

Regents of the University of California v. Heckler,

771 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1985) ......................................................................

3

Rendleman v. Shalala.,

21 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................

3, 5

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment,

523 U.S. 83 (1998) ........................................................................................

4

Stone v. Heckler.,

722 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................

3, 5

Umted States v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp.,

846 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1988) ...........................................................................

5

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1291 ..................................................................................................

2, 6

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended:

Section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5) ............................................................................

12, 13

Secuon 216A(c)(3)(D),

8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(D) (Supp. II 2002) ...................................................

6

Section 216A(d)(1 ),

8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1) (Supp. II 2002) ......................................................

13

Section 216A(e),

8 U.S.C. § 1186b(e) (Supp. II 2002) .............................................................

8

iv

Section 242,

8 U.S.C. § 1252 (Supp. II 2002) ...................................................................

6

REGULATIONS

8 C.F.R. § 3.1(b) (2002) ...........................................................................................

6

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2) (2002) ..................................................................................

6

8 C.F.R. § 240.53(a) (2002) .....................................................................................

6

i_ _.

,u

%

V

Nos. 01-56266 and 01-56379

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEN-WAN CHANG, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees,
Vo
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District for the Central District of California Civil Action No. CV-99-10518-GHK

Court

REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
f
The United States hereby files this reply brief limited to the issues it raised as cross-appellant in.its brief filed August 6, 2002 ("Def. Br."), and addressed by plainUffs as cross-appellees in their brief filed August 29, 2002 ("P1. Reply Br.").

I.

This Court Has Jurisdiction to Hear the Cross-Appeal.

In its cross-appeal, the United States seeks review and reversal of the

district court's order asserting jurlsdicnon to review the denial by the Immigration

and Naturalization Service ("INS") of plaintiffY_ Yuan Chaang's "I-829" pennon for permanent resident status under section 216A of the Immigration and

Nationality Act ("INA"), and remanding Chiang's denial to the INS for a

"retroactivity" analysis under Montgomery Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.

1982). See Def. Br. at 3, 4, 13, 15, 16-17, 21-35.

Plamnffs contend that this Court should dismiss the cross-appeal for lack of

"final order" jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See P1. Rep. Br. at 2, 24-26.

However, the Supreme Court has instructed that section 1291 is to be g_ven a

"practical rather than a technical construction." Gfllesp_e v. U. S. Steel Corp., 379

U.S. 148, 152 (1964); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loans Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949).

The inquiry requires some evaluation of the competing considerations underlying all finality- "the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other."

Eisen v. Carhsle & Jacquehn, 417 U.S. 156, 171 (1974), quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511 (1950).

In Stone v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court ruled on the finality of a d_strict court order holding that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had applied an incorrect legal standard, stating the court's view of the correct standard, and remanding the case for further proceedings under that standard. Following the teachings of Cohen and the other Supreme Court decisions cited above, the Court recognized that if the district court's decision were wrong, it "would result in a totally wasted proceeding below, from which the Secretary may not be able to appeal." 722 F.2d at 467. It found that judicial economy and fairness would both be promoted by permitting an immediate appeal of the district court's order, and so concluded that the remand order was appealable under section 1291. Id.._a_t. 468. Stone cited Gold v. Welnberger, 473 F.2d 1376, 1378 (5th Cir. 1973), and Cohen v. Perales, 412 F.2d 44, 48 (5th Cir. 1969), rev'd on other grounds sub nora. Pochardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), and has been consistently followed by this Court in cases presenting analogous circumstances, including an immigration case involving a dispute over a preference visa. Kaho v. Ilchert, 765 F.2d 877, 880-81 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Rendleman v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 957, 959 n.l and accompanying text (9th Cir. 1994); Chugach Alaska Corp. v. Lujan, 915 F.2d 454, 457 (9th Cir. 1990); Regents of the Univ. of California v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1182, 1186-87 (9th Cir.

1985); Regents of the Umv. ofCahfornla v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1985).
A similar result is warranted here. The d_strict court's assertion of jurisdiction to review the denial of Chlang's 1-829 petition and ItS order that the petition be re-adJudicated under the Montgomery_ Ward analysis have significant and far-reaching implications for the immigration investor program, with the hundreds of 1-829 petitions that have yet to be processed. The assertion of jurisdiction involves a matter of such threshold and fundamental importance, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998), that it should be resolved as quickly and as authoritatively as possible. Plaintiffs have not denied that the district court's order places aliens in the extraordinary position of having two separate vehicles to challenge the merits of an 1-829 denial, each with its own opportunity for circuit court review. See Def. Br. at 26. The order that the INS must determine whether the Montgomery. Ward factors foreclose apphcation of the 1998 immigrant investor precedent decisions to Chiang's 1-829 petition would require the agency to take into account factors which, the Umted States asserts, this Court has already ruled in R. L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS., 273 F.2d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp.2d 1014 (D. t-h. 2000), are inapplicable and which the INS lacks statutory authority to consider. See Def. Br. at 29-34.

Therefore, although the district court's order did not dictate a final result with respect to Chlang's 1-829 petition, see United States v. Louisiana-Pacific Cor_., 846 F.2d 43, 44 (9th Cir. 1988), it did conclusively decide two issues that are separable from the other issues presented by the petitmn and forces the INS to apply a potentmlly erroneous rule of law that may result in a wasted proceeding before the agency and (if the INS again denies Chiang's petition and Chiang again seeks review) before the district court. "Deciding this legal issue now will promote the least possible waste of judicial resources." Stone, 722 F.2d at 467. In addition, because the Attorney General may not appeal from a ruling of the INS, subsequent review of either question presented by this cross-appeal may not be available. See Rendleman, 21 F.3d at 959 n.1; Chugach, 915 F.2d at 457. Eluska_ _,. Andrus., 587 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1978), the case primarily relied upon by plaintiffs (see PI. Reply Br. at 25), is inapposite. It preceded Stone and its progeny and involved a unique exhaustion issue, that is, a special hearing required by an earher decision by this Court, Pence v. Kleppe, 529 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1976). See Eluska, 587 F.2d at 997, 999-1000.
In sum, a decision by this Court on the issues raised by the cross-appeal would serve the interests of administrative and judicial economy and provide clarity to both the government and immigrant investors on the standard of law

governing 1-829 petitions and the proper forum for reviewing denials of such petitions. Under Supreme Court and Circuit precedent, the district court order was "final" under 28 U.S.C. 8 1291 and this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction to review it. II. District Court Jurisdiction Over Chiang's 1-829 Denial Is Not Required
Either To Remedy Immediate Harm to Chiang or To Provide Full Protection of Chiang's Rights. If the regulations governing the immagrant Investor program perrmtted optional appeals within the INS ofi-829 denials, it would be erroneous to contend that such an appeal represented an exhaustion requirement that must be met before seekmgjudimal relief. See Darby v. Clsneros, 509 U.S. 137, 146-47 (1993); P1. Reply Br. at 9-10. However, the regulations in fact bar an intra-agency appeal, w_th the applicant instead granted the right by the INA and the regulations to seek full review of the basis for the denial before an independent imrmgration judge, with the burden of proof lying with the INS. 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(D) (Supp. II 2002); 8 C.F.R. 8 216.6(d)(2) (2002); Def. Br. at 22-23. An adverse ruling by the immigration judge may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"), 8 C.F.R. 88 3.1(b) & 240.53(a) (2002), and an adverse ruhng by the BIA may be appealed to a circuit court of appropriate jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. 8 1252 (Supp. II 2002).

Extensive case law establishes that district court jurisdaction under the Administrative Procedures Act CAPA") is available only when an adequate alternative has not been provided by "special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies." Bowen v. Massachusetts., 487 U.S. 879, 903 (1988); Def. Br. at 21-22, 25-27. An exception to that rule is not required to prevent "very immedmte concrete injuries" to persons receiving 1-829 demals, see P1. Reply Br. at 11-12, 18. By special instructions to its adjudicators, the INS has taken steps up to the limits of its authority to mitigate the impact of the 1998 precedent decisions on persons with 1-526 approvals, and to preserve the rights of persons with 1-829 denials. See "EB-5 Field Memorandum Number 9: Form 1-829 Processing," Mar. 3, 2000. A copy of the Field Memorandum _s attached. The Court may take judicial notice of this official INS document pursuant to Lismg v. INS, 124 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 1997).
First, ira preliminary determination is made that approval of an 1-829 petition is precluded by the 1998 precedent decisions, the applicant will be given an opportunity to file a new 1-526 petition based upon the same job-creating or job-preserving business enterprise and business plan as reflected in his original 1526 petition, but with changes made in his financing plan to achieve compliance with the regulatory standards as interpreted by the precedent decisions. Field

Memorandum at I 1. Under that procedure, the INS will suspend issuance of a decision to deny the 1-829 petition, which allows the ahen to remain in the Umted States in conditional residence status while his new 1-526 petition _s pending. Id__:. at 11-12. If the 1-526 petmon is granted, the alien must then depart the Umted States to file for a new immigrant wsa and obtain authorization for a new two-year conditional resident status from a consular officer abroad. Id__a_t. 12.
Second and directly relevant to this case, lfa properly filed 1-829 petition has been demed but no final order of removal has been entered, conditional permanent resident status is maintained and appropriate documentation is issued to allow the alien freedom to travel and work. Field Memorandum at 15. The documents vary according to whether the applicant still has an unexpired foreign passport, but the instructions are clear: "Documentation of conditional resident status must be issued until a final order of removal is issued." ld___A_n. d if the apphcant should succeed in obtaining reversal of his 1-829 denial, the time he spent in condmonal resident status would count toward the period for applying for naturalization. See INA § 216A(e), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(e) (Supp. II 2002); compare P1. Reply Br. at 12 n.2. Thus, plaintiffChiang remains m lawful status m the United States with full rights as a conditional permanent resident. The denial of his 1-829 petition did not cause him any injury that could justify departure from

the statutory scheme provided by Congress m the INA for review of that denial. _
Nor is departure justified by speculation over the issues that Chiang might
seek to litigate in his removal proceedings. The need for Chiang to raise the broad
constitutional, APA, retroactwity, and estoppel claims outlined in plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint is hypothetical at this point, because the INS might fail to
carry its burden of proving his removabihty before the imrmgratlon judge and the
BIA. If such a need should arise, Chiang may well be foreclosed by the precedent
already established in R. L. Investment. For example, since R. L. Investment has
already found that the INS was not bound by written opimons of its employees,
such as opinions expressed in General Counsel memoranda, and that the INS
should be perrmtted to correct any mistakes it made in administering the
immigrant investor program, 273 F.3d 874 adopting 86 F. Supp.2d at 1022, 1024-
25, it is d_fficult to conceive of a viable basis for estoppel against the agency. Ira published opimon by the Court should result from this proceeding, the
' At the same time, Chiang and other persons with 1-829 demals are not m limbo burdened with uncertainty about their future. The Field Memorandum gives clear and specific instructions that 1-829 denials should be followed as quickly as possible by Notices to Appear ("NTAs") in removal proceedings. See Field Memorandum at 10-11 and Def. Br. at 22-23; compare P1. Reply Br. at 19-20. Moreover, Chmng remains the master of his own fate. He has the fight to demand his money back from his limited partnership, see Def. Br. at 32, and to file a new 1526 petition with a financing plan that complies with the statute and regulations by providing for a genuine equity investment instead of a loan.

retroactivity issue may be settled as well. But assuming for purposes of discussion that a final removal order is
entered against Chiang, and assuming further that he seeks review of that order, and assuming further that something is left of the constitutional, APA, retroactlvlty, and estoppel issues by the time he files his petition for rewew, the petition would provide an adequate vehicle for raising such issues. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 938 (1983) (review by court of appeals of final order of deportation includes "... all matters on which the validity of the final order _s contingent"); Naranjo-Aguilera v. INS, 30 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Petitioners appeahng orders of deportation routinely bring statutory and constitutional challenges to INS regulations and policies"); Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199, 1200-1205 (9th Cir. 1980) (reversing BIA deportation order on APA grounds); compare Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 675-76, 680 (1986) (finding general federal-question jurisdiction over statutory and constitutional challenges to adrmmstration of Medicare program, because otherwise review of such challenges would not be available at all). There is every reason to think that such issues would receive a full and thorough heating if they came before this Court in that posture, because they are issues of law, not fact. The history of the immigrant investor program, the events and administrative
10

actions by the INS that led to the precedent decisions, and of course the contents of the precedent decisions themselves are matters of public record and have never been disputed by the government in R. L. Investment or m this case. See R. L. Investment, 273 F.3d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1016-18 (describing history of immigrant investor program and background to issuance of precedent decisions), 1019-20 (reciting standards for granting summary judgment), 1022 (explaining why unpublished decisions and General Counsel memorandum did not establish binding agency policy), 1024 (same), 1027 (rejecting estoppel claim); compare McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. 479, 493,497 (1991) (finding federal-question jurisdiction necessary to ensure adequate hearing for fact-intensive claims). Since there is no substantial ground at this t_me to believe that Chiang would be able to raise an issue in a petition for review (again, assuming that he receives a final order of removal and seeks review) that would require development of additional facts, he must follow the process described by Congress for challenging his 1-829 denial. III. A Montgome__ Ward Analysis Has Been Mooted By R. L. Investment
and, in Any Event, Is Not for the INS to Consider. Apart from its finding ofjurisdict_on to review Chlang's 1-829 denial, the district court further erred by directing the INS, on remand, to deterlmne whether
11

apphcatlon of the immigrant investor precedent decisions should not be applied to Chiang's 1-829 petition under the Montgomery_ Ward retroactivity analysis. In addition to having been overtaken by the subsequent issuance of R. L. Investment, the district court's order was flawed on its own terms because it misapprehended the nature of 1-829 adjudications and because it wrongly assigned the task of undertaking the Montgomery_ Ward analysis to the INS, whereas the analysis, to the extent it is appropriate at all, is properly performed by a court upon review of the agency's decision. It appears that the plaintiffs and the United States are in agreement on the latter point. See PI. Reply Br. at 24 & n.15, 34-35.
Plaintiffs' main defense of the district court is that apphcatlon of the precedent decisions to 1-829 petitions would involve a retroactive application of new law. P1. Reply Br. at 29-33. The United States has already demonstrated why that _s not so, especially in the wake ofR. L. Investment's holding, issued several months after the d_strict court's order, that the INS did not make new law in issuing the precedent decisions but rather applied existing law to specific facts. Def. Br. at 27, 29-32, 50-55. The argument is simple. Section 203(b)(5) of the INA and its implementing regulations have been in place, unchanged, since 1991. In R. L. Investment, this Court held that the INS did not violate the APA by _ssuing "new rules" or "new criteria" when it explained and interpreted the
12

reqmrements of section 203(b)(5) and ltS regulations in the precedent decisions.

273 F.3d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp.2d at 1024; compare First Amended Complaint

¶ 104, Plaintiffs/Appellants'

Record Excerpts 63-70. Section 216A of the INA

states that adjudication of an 1-829 petiuon requires an exarmnatlon of the

petitioner's comphance with the statutory requirements. See 8 U.S.C. §

1186b(d)(1) (Supp. II 2002) (describing required contents of petition). However,

section 216A does not contain its own requirements, but instead refers back to the

underlying requirements of section 203(b)(5). See id___If_.the INS did not apply

"new law" when it clarified and interpreted the requirements of section 203(b)(5)

in the precedent decisions, _t follows as day follows night that the INS would not

apply "new law" retroactively by applying the precedent decls_ons to 1-829

petitions.

The cases primarily relied upon by plaintiffs are inapphcable because they involved s_gnlficantly different types of agency actions and, as a consequence,

s_gnificantly different analyses of law. In Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th

Cir. 1997), see PI. Rep. Br. at 27, 32, 44-48, the disputed agency action - a

"Change Notice" issued by the Bureau of Prisons - was treated by the Court as a

legislative rule that established new ehgiblhty criteria for sentence reductions. See

ld..._a_,t 1084. Applying the principle established in Bowen v. Georgetown

13

Universl _tyHospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), that a legislative rule will not be

given retroactive effect unless its language clearly requires that result, the Court ruled that "there is no indication anywhere in the Change Notice that the Bureau

Intended that any part of it would apply retroactively or serve to undo prior

eligibility determinations."

113 F.3d at 1084. The Court specifically declined to

address whether retroactive apphcation of the Change Notice should be barred

under Montgomery_ Ward or as a matter ofestoppel. Id__a_t. 1083-84 & n.27 Oil.

Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. NLRB, 842 F.2d 1141 (9th

Cir. 1988), see P1. Reply Br. at 34-35 n.21, concemed the retroactive effect of an

NLRB decision, Indianapolis Power & Light, 273 N.L.R.B. 1715 (1985), which

2 Plaintiffs overstate in saying that a Montgomery_ Ward retroactivity analysis is appropriate to any agency action that allegedly has a retroactive effect. See PI. Rep. Br. at 28. This springs from loose use of the word "rule." If the agency action is found to constitute a leglslanve rule because it establishes a new new norm of behavior - that is, a "new rule" - it will be examined for unwarranted retroactive effect under Bowen v. Georgetown Umverslty Hospital, as Cort v. Crabtree illustrates. If, on the other hand, the agency action _s found to be merely an "interpretive rule," that perforce means that there is no "new rule" and no concern at all about retroactlv_ty. An agency adjudicatory dec_smn may announce a "new rule" that will naturally apply retroactively to the parties to that decision and prospectively to other persons affected by the issues decided. Montgomery_ Ward concerns whether, despite the normal retroactive effect of an adjudicatory decision, the "new rule" should not be applied to the losing party in the case. One of the reasons why this Court found in R. L. Investment that the immigrant investor precedent decisions did not establish new law - a "new rule" - is because it found them analogous to interpretive rules. 273 F.3d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp.2d at 1024.
14

reversed a pubhshed decision, Davls-McKee, Inc., 238 N.L.R.B. 652 (1978), and thereby established new agency law on whether a broad no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement is presumed to include sympathy strikes. See 842 F.2d at 1142-45. In ruhng in R. L. Investment that the immigrant investor precedent decisions did not make new law and did not represent a violation of the APA's rule.making provisions, this Court emphasized that the precedent decisions did not contradict or depart from any pubhshed agency decisions. 273 F.3d 874, adopting 86 F. Supp.2d at 1022, 1024.
The Umted States agrees with the plaintiffs that Montgomery_ Ward does not require the reviewing court to inquire into the ability of the person subject to the agency's order "to 'shoulder' the disadvantage or penalty .... " P1. Rep. Br. at 34. That is precisely why the district court erred in remanding to the INS with instruction,; to conduct that inquiry. The district court's order of remand makes sense only if hardship can be a lawful reason for falling to comply with the immigrant investor statute's investment reqmrements. Because it cannot be, see Def. Br. at 33-34, there is no need for further agency proceedings on that issue. "Hardship" and "penalty" are also not relevant here because the INS's action in denying Chiang's 1-829 petition does not impose a fine or other sanction, see P1. Rep. Br. at .29. Rather, the denial found Chiang ineligible for the benefit of
15

uncondmonal lawful permanent residence status in the United States because he failed to invest the required level ofquahfymg equity capital and failed to show that his investment would result in creation of the statutorily-required number of

full-time jobs. See Plaintiffs/Appellants'

Record Excerpts at 10 l, 103-114.

"Burden" in the Montgomery_ Ward sense really refers to the extent that the losing

party relied upon previous law. The greater the reliance on the old standard, the greater the burden in shifting course and complying with the new standard. But since R. L. Investment holds that there was no "previous law" prior to the precedent decisions that bound the INS or established a "rule," Chlang is barred from claiming that the approval of his first-stage "I-526" petition created a

cognizable reliance interest that could support relief under Montgomery_ Ward or any other rubric from the denial of his 1-829 petition. Put another way, given the holding of R. L. Investment, it does not matter whether Chiang's investment plan was disapproved at the 1-526 stage or the 1-829 stage, because the law was the same.
Thus, for the reasons set forth in this brief and in the United States's

pnncipal brtef, the Court should rule that application of the lmrmgrant investor precedent decisions to Chiang's 1-829 petition posed no retroactivlty concerns under Montgomery Ward and that no further proceedings before the INS on that

16

issue are necessary. If there are any Montgomery_ Ward issues remaining after R...._. L. Invesm_ent and any published decision that results from this case, they can and should be heard by this Court de novo if and when Chlang seeks rewew of a final order of removal. See Def. Br. at 34-35.

,g t

< !
_:1_ _

,J Z_

17

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should find jurisdiction to hear the United States's cross-appeal and rule that the dxstrict court erred in asserting jurisdiction to review the demal of Chlang's 1-829 petition. If the Court finds that the dxstract court had jurisdiction, it should rule that the court erred in remanding to the INS for a Montgomery_ Ward analysis and vacate the remand order.
Respectfully submitted, ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR. Assistant Attorney General M. JOCELYN LOPEZ WRIGHT Senior Litigation Counsel

Dated: September 13, 2002

Senior Litigation Counsel Office of Imrmgratlon Litigation Civil Division U. S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Stalon Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-0601
Attorneys for DefendantAppellee/Cross-Appellant

18

U.S. Department of Justace lmmtgrataon and Naturahzauon Service

425 1 Street NW Washington, DC 20536
MAR 3 2000

EB-5 FIELD MEMORANDUM

NUMBER 9: FORM 1-829 PROCESSING

MEMORANDUM

FOR ALL REGIONAL DIRECTORS, ALL SERVICE CENTER DIRECTORS, DISTRICT DIRECTORS (INCLUDING

FOREIGN),

FROM.

_ fly

GLYNCO AND ARTESIA

Exe_ve

Associate Commissioner

Office fFo ieldOperations

SUBJECT.

AFM Update. Immxgrant Investor Petitions - Form 1-829 Adjudication

This memorandum updates the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM) to provide guidance on

the adju&cation ofpetmons on Form 1-829. Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove the Conditions

In addition, this memorandum provides the _ratus of certain other EB-5 matters and reminds all

Immlgrauon and Naturalization Service (Service) offices that the Service remains committed to

having these complex matters adjudicated by specially trained and experienced officers. The

AFM Is updated by adding appendices which include a list of frequently asked questions about

Form 1-829, a model notice of automatic termination of status, and four model Notices to Appear

(Form 1-862) These policies and procedures the AFM in the next release of INSERTS.

are effective immediately

and will be included in

This memorandum reflects the complexity of certain EB-5 petitions and the INS' commitment to provide specialized training to Service personnel who adjudicate these petitions. All Service personnel are reminded that the "hold" on the adjudicatjon of certain EB-5 petitions implemented i:,ursuant to the March 19, 1998 field memorandum is over.

1 In Chapter 25 of the Adjudications follows:

Field Manual, section 25 2 is added to read as

25.2 Removall of Conditions for Section 203(b)(5) Immigrants

(a) Commitment to Trained and Experienced Officers.

All Service offices must

ensure that only specially trained and experienced officers who understand the gmdance provided

in recent precedent decisions and field instructions adjudicate EB-5 petitions. Therefore, all

/

Memorandum for Regional Directors, etc Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 2

Service offices should review procedures, e.g., annual rotations and processing timelines, to

ensure a careful and thorough adjudication. Training m the adjudication of pemions filed on

Form 1-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove Conditions, is bemg scheduled at this time for

district office adjudicators. Ifa district, service center, or regional office is referred a Form 1-829

and Is without a trained and experienced officer, the office should follow the procedures outlined

in this memorandum.

In addition, all such offices must ensure that the officers adjudicating

pemions on Form 1-829 have received training in the Marriage Fraud Amendment System

(MFAS).

Service center directors in Texas and Califorma, regional directors and distnct &rectors m offices w11h a high volume of Form 1-829 petmons shall designate a trained and experienced officer as an EB-5 POC to facilitate the review and management of petmons on Form 1-829 m accordance w_th these instructions For purposes ofclamy m these instructions, the term "service center d_rector" includes the service center EB-5 POC and the term "d_stnct d_rector" includes the clistrict EB-5 POC.

(b) Failure to File Form 1-829. These instructions prowde procedures consmtent with

those provided for the adjudicanon (for ahen spouse) where possible resident status must submit Form

o__Ff orm 1-751, Pemion to Remove Conditmn on Residence Under 8 CFR 216 6(a). immigrant rover'.ors m conditional 1-829 to the appropriate service center within the 90-day period

immediately preceding the second anniversary of his or her admissmn to me United States as a

condmonal permanent resident. A condmonal resldent _ _a_ture to prope,y file form 1-829

within the time period prescribed in the statute and the regulatmns will result under 8 CFR 216.6(a)(5) m the automatic termination of the conditional resldent's status and mitiauon of

removal proceedings

Service officers are reminded that, in accordance with the Notice m the Federal Register at 63 Fed. Reg. 67135, published on, and in effect since, December 4, 1998, the service centers in Vermont and Nebraska no longer have jurisdiction over EB-5 matters. Form 1-829 peutions are to be filed at either (1) the Texas Service Center ffthe new commercml enterpnse is located, or will principally be doing business, m the areas prevmusly covered by the Vermont and Texas Service Centers or (2) the California Service Center if the new commercial enterprise is located, or will pnncipally be doing business, in the areas previously covered by the Nebraska and California Service Centers.

However, to facditate timely notificatmn, immediately upon pubhcatmn of this memorandum, the Nebraska and Vermont Service Centers wdl generate a pnntout from the MFAS to determine those condmonal residents whose 1-526's were approved by those centers who have failed to file timely Form 1-829s to have the conditions on thetr status removed m accordance with Sectmn 216A(c) of the Immigration and Nationahty Act (the Act). Termination ofconditmnat status for fadure to file to remove the condmons dunng the proper period is

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc.
Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 3

automatic by law and by regulations. This one time procedure is necessary to avoid excess movement of files that may result in undue delay and due to service resource concerns.

Where it is determined that Form 1-829 has not been umely filed, the appropriate service center director shall issue the attached standard notice which states that the failure to file has resulted in the automatic terminaUon of the alien's status. (See Appendix 22-3). The alien's MFAS file shall be updated as "Automatic Termination" and the notice of automatic termination generated. Where such alien is unrepresented, the original notice of automatic termination is to be sent to the alien whose conditional resident status has been automatically terminated. Where such alien is represented, the notice shall be sent to the attorney or representative of record. Two copies of the notice of automatic termination are to be placed in the A-file. The A-file will be routed to the madroom wtth instructmns to forward the file to the Office of Ad.ludicauons of the Service District Office with jurisdiction over the location of the condmonal resident's last known address for issuance of the NTA. The service center shall update CIS and RAFACS to indicate that the files, have been transferred.

Hereafter, each service center shall generate weekly a printout from the MFAS to determine tho_se condmonal residents wathm their respective jurisdictions who have failed to file timely Form 1-829 to have the conditions on their status removed m accordance with Section 216A(c) of the Act The Nebraska Service Center wall forward this report to the California Service Center weekly for tssuance of the-standard notice Likewise, the Vermont Service Center wall forwara tins report to me fexas Service Center weekly for issuance ot me _tanttard notice. Thereafter, the service centers wdl use standard letters to respond to all inquiries regarding the termmauon ofcondmonal resident status. The letter will direct inquiries to the District Counsel's Office of the Service District Office to which the A-file was transferred.

(c) Receipt of Form 1-829. Parallel to the procedures for processing Form 1-75 I, Petnion to Remove Conditions on Residence, upon receipt of Form 1-829, the service center d_rector shall issue the conditional resident a fee receipt notice on Form 1-797 that includes the following paragraph.

Your Permanent Resident Card (Form 1-551), also known as a "green card," is extended

one (1) year- employment and travel is authorized during this extension

Processing your

petition for removal of conditions will reqmre a minimum of one hundred and twenty (120)

days. Thirty (30) days before the expiration of this extension, if you have not received

approval of your petition, please contact the district office nearest to where you are living for

further documentation for employment and/or travel purposes

(d) Adjudication

of Form 1-829 By Service Center. (1) Initial Review of Form 1-829. A

service center director in receipt of a timely filed petition on Form 1-829 may approve the

peution without an interview, issue a request for further evidence that can be provided in writing,

Memorandurnfor RegionalD,rectors,etc. Subject: AFlVlUpdate: ImmigrantInvestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

Page4

or refer it for an adjudication(with or without the interview) by a district office under 8 CFR
216.6(d).

The service center director must initially review the petition in order to determine which course

to take. The petition must be adjudicated with the A-file and normal procedures are to be

followed for requesting the A-file (see paragraph (e) for procedures m the event of delay in

receipt of a requested A-file). In addition, the director is to follow normal procedures for

consultation and referral to operational and investigative units where this is appropriate. If necessary, such units may coordinate the referral of a petition on Form 1-829 to the Department

of Treasury's research.

Financial Cnmes Enforcement

Network (FINCEN) with a request for appropriate

(2) Approval of Form 1-829 by the Service Center Director. A service center dzrector

may approve a petition on Form 1-829 if he or she is satisfied that the petition establishes the requirements for removal of the conditions under 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1), enumerated at paragraph (0(5) of this memorandum. If the petition is approved, the service center director will remove

the condition,,; on the conditional resldent's status _ of the second anniversary of his or her admission as a conditional resident. Written notice of the decision must be provided to the conditional residem if he or she is not represented; however, if the conditional resident is

represented a_. evidenced by a duly executed Form G-28, the notice must be provided to the

-attorney or representative of record only Pursuant to 8 CFR 216.6(d)(1)) the notice must require

the conditional resident to report to the appropriate district office for processing for a new

permanent resident card, Form 1-551 At the district office, the conditional resident shall surrender any permanent resident card previously issued and receive interim documentation for 12 months m the form of either a temporary 1-551 stamp in his or her uffexpired foreign

valid

passport 0fthe expiration date of the passport is one year or more), or a Form 1-94 containing a

temporary I-551 stamp and his or her photograph. The district director should follow normal

procedures for card production.

(3) Request for Evidence. A service center director may also issue a request for additional evidence (RFE). An RYE must be based on a determination by the service center director that, in his or her discretion, in order to approve or refer the petition, the conditional resident must provide further documentation or answer certain questions in writing. In such a case, any questions posed must be stated with specificity. If the questions cannot be answered in writing, the petition must be referred for an interview. An RYE is not appropriate if the petition - is clearly demable on grounds other than those for which the RYE might be issued. Under 8 CFR I03.2(b)(8), a conditional resident is to be provided 12 weeks to respond to an RYE. Upon receipt of the conditional resident's response to the RYE, the service center director must approve or refer the Form 1-829 petition.

(4) De,termination that Referral to District Office is Appropriate.

The service center

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc.
Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Lqy.estor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 5

director should refer a petition on Form 1-829 to a district director if the initial revxew of the petition, or the response to a request for additional evidence, reveals that:
(A) under the regulation at 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1), the requirements for removal of conditions have not been met and the case should be denied without an interview, or that

(B) an interview is necessary to approve or deny the petmon.

A recommendation that the petition be denied without an interview is appropriate where the service center director determines that there is no material issue of fact m dispute and that the petition does not meet the requirements of the law and the regulations. In such a case, _t should be clear that an interview _s unlikely to produce evJdence to alter a decls_on to deny the petition.

Section 216A(d)(3) of the Act provides the Attorney General with authonty to waive the

deadline for an interview or the interview itself, if that is appropriate. Accordingly, an interview

is not required, to either approve or deny the petition; neither is an interview a benefit that the

alien may request. Under current regulations, both service center and district directors have

authority in appropriate cases to waive the interview_and adjudicate the petition. However, a

service center director only has authority to waive an interview if the petition appears to be

approvable on Its face; he or she cannot waive the interview if the peution appears deniable. As

dlsc,,ssed in paragraph 5, below, the recommendation

that accompames the referral should

include the service center director's recommendations

regarding whether an interview is

necessary to approve or deny the petition

(5) Service Center Recommendation

(A) Demal Without Interview. A servlce center

director who refers a Form 1-829 petition to a district director with a recommendation

that th...._e

reQmrements tbr removal of conditions are not met and the case should be denied wxthout an

interview (see paragraph 4, above) shall forward the peution as directed by the regional EB-5 POC with:

- a memorandum reviewing the petition and explaining the reasons for his or her -

recommendation,

in particular, the reasons why an interview is unnecessary for the

denial of_e petition.

(B) Adjudication With Interview. A service center director who refers a Form 1-829

petition with a recommendation

that an interview is necessary to approve or deny the petition

(see paragraph 4, above) shall forward the petition as directed by the regional EB-5 POC with:

a memorandum reviewing the petition and explaining the reasons for his or her

specific recommendation; and

a hst of recommended questions that should be answered in an interview in order to

approve or deny the petition.

(e) Regional EB-5 POC Coordination.

Each regional director shall designate an officer

Memorandumfor RegionalDirectors,etc.

Subject: AFM Update: ImmigrantlrivestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

¢. ,°f_."

•

Page 6

in his or her respective regional office to receive appropriate training and to coordinate the

management of petitions on Form 1-829 within his or her region. The responsibilities of the regional EB-5 POC include determining to which district office the service center director will

forward the petition; coordinating the referral with the proper district director; ensunng that the

petition is adjudicated by a trained distinct office adjudicator in accordance with these

instructions, and; keeping a record of the distribution of cases within his or her region. In addition, the regional EB-5 POC is responsible for assisting an adjudications officer who has not

received a requested A-file from a service center or district office within 30 days of a request (see

paragraph (d)(1) of this field memorandum).

In such a case, ira CIS file transfer request (FTR)

screen indicates that no file transfer was initiated (FTI) after 30 days, the regional EB-5 POC

must contact the regional POC for records at the File Control Office and coordinate the transfer

oft.he requested file The regional EB-5 POC shall also coordinate the referral of substantive questions received from service centers and district offices to the Headquarters Immigration

Services Division (HQISD) for a responsive review.

Prior to forwarding a file for referral, the service center director shall contact the

appropriate regional EB-5 POC at the number located at Appendix 22-4. When contacted by a

service center director, the regional EB-5 POC shall consult with the distnct office having_

jurisdiction over the location of the allen entrepreneur's commercial enterpnse in the Umt,.d

States. If there is a trained officer at that location, the regional EB-5 POC shall direct the

service center director to forward the petition to that office, if there is no trained officer at that

location, the regional EB-5 POC shall consult with distinct offices as necessary to direct the

referral of the case in accordance with the availability, and expeditious use, of trained and

experienced district office adjudicators

The regional EB-5 POC shall consider whether a district

director-without a trained and experienced officer prefers to detail in such an officer from another

district office or has other preferences, e.g. for a telephonic or video interview.

In a specific case, a district director may determine and recommend to the regional EB-5 POC that, due to the limited availability of trained district office adjudicators, he/she must delegate his or her authority to a district director with a trained and experienced officer. A delegation of authority must be clear and in writing. In such cases, the regional EB-5 POC is responsible for ensuring that a written delegation of authority from the dis(rict director with jurisdiction is transmitted by fax or mail to the district director under whose authority the interview will be performed.

In all cases, once a district office is selected to perform the adjudication, the regional EB5 POC will direct the service center director to forward the case file by certified mail or express mail service to that office flagged in red marker "to the attention of the distnct EB-5 POC." The service center director must record the referral of the case in MFAS in accordance with routine procedures.

Memorandumfor RegaonaDl irectors,etc. Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant InvestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

Page7

(f) Adjudication of Form 1-829 bv District Office.

(I) Procedures for Currently Received Form 1-829s. Upon issuance of this

memorandum, distnct offices with Form 1-829 petitions prepared and transmitted m a manner

that Is NOT consistent with the procedures outlined in this memorandum must return those files

to the appropriate service center, with the A-file, marked to the attention of the EB-5 POC and, in

red, "I-829 return." The distract director must update CIS accordingly.

In accordance w_th the

Notice in the Federal Register, 63 FR 67135, published on December 4, 1998, effective

immediately, the Vermont and Nebraska Service Centers no longer ha_ e jurisdiction over EB-5

matters Form 1-829 petitions shall be returned to"

(A) the Texas Service Center if the new commercml enterprise is located, or will pnnc_pally be doing business, in the areas previously covered by the Vermont and Texas Service Centers; or

(B) the California Service Center if the new commercial enterprise is located, or will principally be doing business, in the areas previously covered by the Nebraska and California Service Centers.

When a Form 1-829 file _s returned to the California or Texas Service Center, the d_strtct office must manually send the petmoner, or the attorney or representative of record if the petitioner is represented, a notice of the file transfer The notice of file transfer should inform that, if necessary, the conditional resident may take the receipt notice to the nearest district office and receive evidence &status in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (g).

In addition, the Vermont and Nebraska Service Centers are instructed to forward any

outstanding Form 1-829-petittons to the Texas and California Service Centers. Upon receipt of a returned file, the Texas and California Service Centers are instructed to prepare and transmit the

file with the required recommendation instructions.

through a regional EB-5 POC in accordance with these

(2) Initial Review of Form 1-829 Transmitted in Accordance with these Instructions. District offices that receive a petition on Form 1-829 prepared and transmitted in accordance with these instructions may approve or deny the petition with or without an interview The &strict director must initially review the petition in order to determine whether or not an interview will be conducted and that the necessary written delegation of authority is in the case
file In adjudicating the petition, the &strict director may accept or reject the service center director's reconamendation.

Memorandumfor RegionalDirectors,etc. Subject: AFM Update. ImmigrantInvestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

Page8

(3) Waiver of the Interview.

A district director may waive the interview if an interview

is not neces.,;ary because either:

(A) the petition is approvable and the requirements for removal of the condiuons

are established; or

(B) the petition is deniable because on its face those requirements established.

are not

Therefore, to waive the interview and approve or deny the petition, the district director must be satisfied that the initial review of the petiuon demonstrates that the requirements for the removal of conditions are met or not met and an interview can provide no information relevant to that finding and, therefore, will serve no purpose. If the interview is wawed, the petmon must be annotated ar, d MFAS updated in accordance with routine procedures

(4) "l"he Form 1-829 Interview.

If an interview is necessary to approve or deny the

petition, the d_stnct d_rector will offer the conditional resident the option of traveling to the

district office for a face-to-face interview or, if avadable, particlpatmg telephonically or by video

conferencmg.

The interviewing officer shall create a record of the interview that responds to the

service center d_rectorq memorandum, and sets forth new or addmonal information or _ssues

arising from the interview. The officer who conducts the interview shall render a final

ad.lud_cation of the Form 1-829 and recommend aA.eczs_on to the district director m accordance

with his or her findmgs Ifa condmo,al resident fails to appear for an interview, the allen

permanent resident status shall be terminated automatically m accordance with the procedures

outlined at 8 CFR 216 6(b)(3).

(5) Approval of Form 1-829 by the District Director. A district may approve a petition on Form 1-829 if he or she Is satisfied that the petition estabhshes that the requlrements for the removal of the conditions have been met under 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1), namely that:

(A) a commercial enterprise was established by the conditional resident;

(B) the conditional resident invested or was actively in the process of investing the requisite capital;

(C) the conditional resident sustained the establishment and investment activities throughout the relevant period of his or. her residence in the United States, Le., the condttional resident, in good faith, substantially met the capital investment requirement of the statute and continuously maintained his or her capital investment over the two years of conditional residence; and

Memorandumfor RegionalDirectors,etc. Subject: AFIVlUpdate: Immigrant InvestorPetmons--Form1-829Adjudication

Page9

(D) the condinonal resident created or can be expected to create within a reasonable penod of time ten full-time jobs to qualifying employees•
In addition, pursuant to section 216A(c)(3) of the Act, it must also be determined that the facts and information contained in the petition are true.

(6) Action by District Director upon Approval. If, after ininal review or after the interview, the petition is approved, the district director will remove the conditions on the conditional resident's status as of the second anniversary of his or her admission as a conditional permanent resident. The distnct director must provide written notice of the decision to the conditional resident if he or she is not represented; however, if the conditional resident is represented as evidenced by a signed G-28, the notice must be provided to the attorney or representanve of record only. Pursuant to 8 CFR 216 6(d)(l), the notice must require the conditional resident to report to the appropriate district office for processing of a new permanent resident card, Form 1-551. At that time the conditional resident shall surrender any permanent resident card previously issued and shall receive temporary evidence of lawful permanent resident status m accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section. The district director shall ensure that tile file, including all relevant documents, for example, a deleganon of authonty or a record of the interview, is returned to the appropriate service center director Normal procedures should be followed for entering the decision into MFAS and card production

(7) Derogatory information.

In accordance with 8 CFR 216 6(c)(2), if the review of the

petition, or the interview itself, reveals derogatory reformation concerning the requirements for

removal of conditions (see paragraph (5)), the district director shall provide the condinonal

resident the opportunity to rebut such information. A 30-day period from the date of issuance is

a reasonable period of time within which to allow the petitioner to submit a rebuttal. This

opportunity to rebut provlded by 8 CFR 216.6(c)(2) does not entail a notice of intent to deny.

Rather the district director shall issue a Form 1-72, Form Letter for Returning Deficient

Apphcations/Petitions,

with a short explanation of the derogatory informahon, a request that the

conditional resident respond only to that information, and the date the response is due. This will

provide the conditional resident wath an opportunity to rebut only that information on the Form

1-72. Derogatory information should be limited to information that the alien has not previously

had an opportunity to address and the opportunity to rebut should not reopen the entire case. The

opportunity to rebut shall also be provided if it is determined that the entrepreneur obtained his

or her investment funds through other than legal means (such as through the sale of illegal

drugs).

If no unresolved derogatory pursuant to the procedures outlined als...._8floCFR 216.6(c)(2)

informanon is present, the petition shall be approved in paragraph (0(6) of thzs section of the Fmld Manual.

Se__ee

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc.
Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 10

If the conditional resident fails to overcome such derogatory reformation or evidence that the investment funds were obtained through other than legal means, the director may deny the petition in accordance with paragraph (0(8) of this section, terminate the conditional resident's status, and issue a Notice To Appear (NTA) (See Appendix 22-2)
For example, the interview may reveal that a conditmnal resident has created positions for only seven full time employees. If, in rebuttal, the conditional resident states that he or she intends to create three additional positions at an indefinite time in the future, the petition has not met the requirements of the regulations and the petition should be denied. On the other hand, an interview may reveal that while a conditxonal resident has created positions for ten full time employees, only nine are actually working. The conditional resident may present rebuttal reformation by demonstrating that he or she actively recruited the tenth employee, and the tenth employee is expected to be hzred and begin employment imminently. The director may, after considering this information as well as all of the evidence supporting the petition as a whole, determine that such a peution is approvable.

If derogatory information unrelated to any of the requirements for removal of conditions is identified during the course of the interview (for example, an arrest or criminal conviction), such information shall be forwarded to the investigations fimt for appropriate action, and no opportunity to rebut shall be provided.

(8) Denial of Form 1-829 by the distr_ct director. A district director must deny a

petmon on Form 1-829 1i the petmon does not estabhsh the reqmrements for re,,,.,,,, of

conditions hsted in 8 CFR 216.6(c)(1).

If, after imtial review or after the interview, the district

director demes the petition, he or she shall provide written notice to the conditmnal resident if he

or she is not represented.

However, if the condmonal resident is represented, the district director

shall provide written notice of the decision to the conditional resident's attorney or representative of record only. No appeal shall lie from ttus decision. The conditmnal resident may seek review

of the district director's decismn in removal proceedings. distnct director shall:

In issuing this denial notice, the

(A)advise the conditional resident of the specific reasons for the denial and that:

--the conditional resident's status, and that of his or her spouse or children, is terminated as of the date of the decision and, in the case of a conditional resident that is not represented, that an NTA is attached, or, in the case of a represented condiuonal resident, that an NTA will be served separately upon the alien,

--the conditional resident _s instructed to surrender to the distnct office any permanent resident card, Form 1-55 I, previously issued by the Service and request temporary evidence of conditional residence; and

Memorandum for Reglonal Directors, etc Subject: AFM Update Immigrant Investor PetlUons--Form

1-829 Adjudlcauon

Page 11

--there is no appeal from the decision, although the conditional review of the decision in removal proceedings;

resident may seek

(B) i';sue and serve an NTA together with the notice if the conditional resident ,s not represented (if the conditional resident Is represented, the nonce should be sent only to the attorney or the representative of record and the NTA should be sent to the conditional resident) m accordance with the routine procedures (See Appendix 22-2) and with proper service of the NTA to the Executive Office of Immigration Review,

(C) enter the denial reformation into MFAS

(D)ensure that the A-file includes all relevant documents, for example, a delegation of authority or a record of the interview, and is forwarded to the appropriate Office of the Distnct Counsel. An office of the d_stnct or reg,onal counsel w_th quesnons regarding this field memorandum should contact the Office of the General Counsel at the number for that office at Appendix 22-4.

(9) G rounds for Denial ofForm following grounds'

1-829

A distract director may deny Form 1-829 on the

(A) Denial due to alien's failure to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements as a

factual matter lhe Service lacks authority to grant a Form 1-829 petmon ffthe petmon

does not meet the statutory and regulatory reqmrements.

This is true even ,fthe Servsce

granted the original 1-526 pemlon in error and the petmoner has comphed with the

investment plan outlined m-the Form 1-526 If a director determines, after initial review

of the Form 1-829 petition, or referral for an interview, that the pemion on its face does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, the petition must be denied.

(B) Denial due to features discussed in the June 26, 1998, field memorandum

Special

procedures referenced in the June 26, 1998, field memorandum should be followed when

a district director determines that a Form 1-829 sh.ould be denied solely because one or

more of the seven features discussed therein, and precluded under the recently issued

precedent decisions, were present in the Form 1-526. (If the petition is deniable for any

other reason, for example because the conditional resident did not meet the job creation

or preservation requirement or the new commercml enterprise has failed or is no longer

viable, then the Service will follow normal procedures for denying a pemion.) In a case

deniable solely for one of the seven features discussed in the June 26, 1998, field

memorandum, the conditional resident will be glven an opportunity to file a new Form 1-

526 based upon the same job-creating or job-preserving

business enterprise and business

plan as in the original Form 1-526 petition but with changes made to the financing of the

business plan, while the Service suspends issuance of a decision to deny his or her Form

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc
Subject: AFM Update. Immigrant Investor Peutions--Forrn

1-829 Adjudxcation

Page 12

1-829. This would allow conditional residents who exercise this option to remain in the United States m conditional resident status while their new petiuon is pending A decision on the pending Form 1-829 would be issued once adjudication of the Form 1-526 is completed. Should the Service grant the new Form 1-526 petition, the conditional resident could seek to obtain an immigrant visa from a consular officer abroad and return to the. Umted States to begin a new 2-year period of conditional residence. Thus, for eases falling under this paragraph, the district director shall issue a notice of mtent to deny that shah state the reasons for the issuance of the notice of intent to deny and shall advise the conditional resident of the following:

If he or she files, with the service center having,lurisdictlon

over the location of

the new commercial enterprise, a new petluon on Form 1-526, with the fee,

within 90 days of the date of the notice of intent to deny, and th_s new petition does not contain the defects in the original filing, the Service will suspend

issuance of a denial of his or her Form 1-829 until it has adjudicated the new Form 1-526 Concurrently, the conditional resident should send a copy of both

the new Form 1-526 and proof of filing to the distrtct director of the district

office that issued the notice of intent to deny. Exercising_this option will allow the conditional resident to remain in the United States in conditional resident

status during the ad,ludlcauon of the new petition Should the new petition be approved, however, he or she wall be reqmred to depart the Umted States to file

for an immigrant visa and obtain authorlzauon for a new 2-year condmonal

resident period from a consular officer abroad, since, pursuant to section 245(0 of the Act, conditional residents cannot apply within the United States for

ad,lustment of status

If he or she does not file a new Form 1-526 within 90 days of the date of the notice of intent to deny, the Service wall proceed to deny the Form 1-829 on the merits of the peution and issue a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings.

If he or she does exercise the option to file a new Form 1-526, the conditional

resident must agree to continue to provide-the same opportunities for

employment for the entire new conditional resident period. In addition, the new

petition that is filed must be based upon:

- an investment in the same,lob-creating

or.lob-preserving

United States business

as the original petiuon;

- a business plan that _s the same as in the original petition and that was sufficient

and was otherwise fully complied with in the original petition throughout the two-

year conditional period; and

- the same job-creating or job-preserving United States business that actually

created or preserved the required number of jobs.

Memorandurr/forRegionalDtrectors,etc. Subject' AFM Update: ImmigrantInvestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

Page13

Theonly changethat maybemadein the newpetittonis in the financingof the businessplan.
In the newForm1-526petition that is filed undertheseprocedurest,he
conditional resident must recogmze that the original request to remove the condiuons on the conditional resident's status was deniable or subject to denial because the original petition did not comply with the law and the regulations.
If the new Form 1-526 petition is denied, the Service will proceed to deny the Form 1-829 on the merits of the petition and issue a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings.
If the new Form 1-526 petition zs approved, the conditmnal resident must, within 60 days of the date of the approval notice, submit to the service center director of the servtce center where the new Form 1-526 was approved a completed and signed Form 1-407, Abandonment by Alien of Status as Lawful Permanent Resident, abandoning his or her permanent resident status, and his or her expired Form 1-551, Permanent Resident Card, if still in his or her possession. Upon receipt of Form 1-407, the Service 7,vill proceed to de_'" the Form I-8"2_ofor failure to prosecute. Once this denial is issued, the alien wall no longer be m lawful status and will begin to accrue time unlawfully present ,n the U_mted States for purposes of section 212(a)(9)(B)0) of the Act i ne ,men shouia promptly trepan the United States to avoid any adverse consequences under the Act and file for an _mmlgrant wsa with a consular office abroad The Form 1-407 must be received by the service center by the close of business on the last day of the 60-day period. If the Service does not receive Form 1-407 by the close of the 60-day ume period, the Service wall proceed to deny the Form 1-829 on the merits of the petition and issue a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings.
When filing for a new immigrant visa with a consular officer abroad, the alien should provide to the consular officer a copy of the notice of intent to deny, a copy of the Form I407, evidence of the date of departure from the United States (e g., boarding pass), and evidence of the approval of the new Form 1-526 petition, in addition to any documentation required by the consular officer for visa processing.
.
Finally, if admission for a new two-year conditional period is authorized by the consular officer and the alien is admitted to the Umted States as a conditional resident, he or she will be reqmred to comply with all the reqmrements of the law, including the employment creation requirements, so that the jobs previously

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc.

Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

¢.- ,_f_"

*

1-829 Adjudication

Page 14

created or preserved by the new commercial the new 2-year conditional period.

enterprise are sustained throughout

MFAS should be appropriately updated and the case file placed m a holding area. or holding cabinet, marked "EB-5 1-829 90 day hold" during the response period. At the end of the 90-day period, the district director shall determine whether a response has been received and, if so, whether that response provides evidence that a new petition has been filed in accordance with

the notice. If no response is received, the distnct director shall proceed to prepare and issue the denial and the NTA in accordance with the procedures outlined above lfa new petition is filed in accordance with the notice, the district dtrector shall forward the original file to the servlce center director w_th junsdicuon over that fihng. The service center director must promptly adjudicate the: petition pursuant to the guidelines provided m recent precedent decisions and field instructions.

For those conditional residents whose new Form 1-526 petitions are approved, the service

center director shall mail the approval notice to the conditional resident if unrepresented or, if

represented, to the attorney or representative of record and record the approval of the new

petmon in CLAIMS The service center director shall place the file m a holding cabinet, marked "EB-5 60-day hold" dunng the 60-day period m which the ahen must submit Form 1-407 (and Form 1-551, if any) before departing the United States and filing for a new immigrant visa at a

consular office abroad. Immediately after the end of the 60-day period, the service center director will determine whether the ahen submitted Form 1-407. If the alien failed to submit the

Form

1-40"7, the service center director shall transfer the alien's file to the district office for

issuance of a denial of the Form 1-829 on the merits of the petition and a Notice to Appear. If it is determined that the alien submitted the Form 1-407, the service center director shall transfer

the ahen's file with a copy of Form 1-407 to the distnct office that msued the notice of intent to

deny Form 1-829 for issuance of a denial of the Form 1-829 for failure to prosecute. MFAS must

be updated accordingly. Form 1-407, in the original, shall be forwarded to the Texas Service

Center for additional processing.

Upon the admission of an alien based upon the new immigrant

visa, immigration officers shall ensure that a new A number is not created, hut that the prior A

number is assigned to the alien's new immigrant visa.

(C) Denial due to fraud or other criminal grounds. When a district director determines that a petition may be deniable for fraud or other criminal grounds, the Form 1-829 petiuon shall be referred to the district's investigations branch with specific requests for a benefit fraud investigation. The district director may also coordinate the referral of a Form 1-829 petiuon to FINCEN with a request for appropriate research. The district director shall make no disposition of the petition until he or she obtains a report of the results of the referral or mvestzgation.

(g) Extension of Status for Conditional Residents with Pending or Denied Forms

Memorandum for Regional Directors, etc Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 15

1-829. Service officers are advised that no extension of status can be given to an alien who has not filed a Form 1-829, unless the district director accepts a late pennon based upon the alien's showing of good cause in accordance with 8 CFR 216.6(a)(5).

Upon receipt of a properly filed Form 1-829, the Servtce is authorized by 8 CFR 216.6(a)(1) to extend automatically a conditional resident's status, if necessary, until such time as a service center or district director has adjudicated the petition. Therefore, if necessary, a district immigration information officer (IIO) in receipt of a request for documentation for travel or employment purposes from a petitioner who requires an extension of status based on a filed Form 1-829 shall check the status of the petitioner on MFAS. If the Form 1-829 has been denied, the IIO should check DACS to determine if an NTA has been issued. If no NTA has been issued, the II0 must ensure that the petitioner is issued an NTA through Investigations or Adjudicanons, depending on the policy of the district office

If the Form 1-829 is still pending or it has been denied but no final order of removal has been entered, the IIO must collect the expired Permanent Resident Card and issue either"

(A) a temporary 1-551 stamp with a 12-month expiration date in the petitioner'_ unexpired, foreign passport Of the expiration date of the passport is one year or more), or

(B) if the petitioner is not in possession of an unexpired foreign passport, (arrival pomon) containing a temporary 1-551 stamp with a 12-month and a photograph of the petitioner.

a Form 1-94 expiration date

The lIO,must use the same conditional resident status code initmlly issued to the petitioner and grant the status for an additional 12 months. Documentation of conditional resident status must be issued until a final order of removal is issued. An order of removal is final ifa decision is not
appealed or, if appealed, when the appeal is dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Where the Form 1-829 has been denied for failure to appear for an interview, the alien's

permanent resident status will be automatically terminated.

Temporary evidence of permanent

resident status as stated above should only be _ssued if the conditional resident's status is restored

as described in 8 CFR 216.6(b)(3).

(h)-Lawfui Permanent Residents whose Conditions have been Removed. Service Officers are reminded that, as stated in the field memorandum of June 26, 1998, absent a finding of fraud or o':her improper acts, the Service will not inttiate reclssion proceedings in the cases of aliens who have obtained lawful permanent resident status (without conditions) based on petitions thal may have not complied with the statute and regulations, as discussed in the General Counsel's memorandum of December 19, 1997.

Memorandum for Regional Directors, etc. Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor PetiUons--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 16

. The AFM Table of Contents is revised and a new Appendix 22-1 is added to read as follows'

Appendix 22- I

FREQUENTLY

ASKED QUESTIONS

ABOUT FORM 1-829

What is the Form 1-829?

Form 1-829, Petition by Entrepreneur to Remove the

Conditions, is a petition that must be filed by an alien entrepreneur, or immigrant investor, m

conditional permanent resident status under section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

, What is the Form 1-829 used for?

Section 203(b)(5) provldes an alien

entrepreneur/investor

with a 2-year penod of conditmnal residence to invest the reqmred

capital m a new commercial enterprise that the ahen has estabhshed.

In addiuon, m the 2-

year period the alien entrepreneur/investor

must create full-time employment for the reqmred

number of United States workers. (Umted States workers may be cmzens, ahens lawfully

admitted for permanent residence or other immigrants lawfully authorized to be employed m

the United States, other than the petiuoner and immediate family members) Form 1-829 is

used by an alien entrepreneur/investo?

at the end of the 2-year condltmnal period to request

removal of the conditions on his or her lawful permanent re,.dent status.

m When is Form 1-829 filed?

It must be filed within the 90-day period preceding the

second anniversary of the conditional of status as a cond_ttonal resident.

restdent's

admlssmn

to the Umted States or adjustment

. Where is Form 1-829 filed?

Form 1-829 must be filed with the INS service center

having jurisdiction over the locauon of the ahen entrepreneur/investor's

commercml

enterprise in the United States On December 4, 1998, the Service published a Federal

Register Notice announcing that all petitions related to ahen entrepreneur/immigrant

investor

classification were to be filed at the newly defined jurisdictional areas of either the Texas

Service Center or the Cahfomia Service Center (63 FR 67135).

Petitmns on Form 1-829 are flied (1) with the Texas Service Center if the new commercial

enterprise is located, or wall principally be doing business, in the geographic area previously

under the jurisdiction of the Vermont and Texas Service Centers or (2) with the California

Service Center if the new commercial enterprise is located, or will principally be domg

business, in the geographic area previously Nebraska Service Centers.

under the jurisdiction

of the Cahfornia and

The Nebraska and Vermont Service Centers no longer have jurisdiction over Form 1-829. The Nebraska and Vermont Service Centers were authorized to forward EB-5 petmons to the Texas and California Service Centers if necessary due to incorrect filing for a

Memorandumfor Regional Directors, etc.
Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor Petmons--Form

1-829 Adjud_cauon

Page 17

60-day period following December 4, 1998. (That time period has expired.)

5. What are the mailing addresses for these new filing locations?

The current marling

addresses for these petitions and applications are as follows: for the Cahfornia Service

Center, 24000 Avila Road, 2 "a floor (P O Box I0526), Laguna Niguel, Cahfomia 92607-

0526; for the Texas Service Center, P O. Box 852135, Mesqmte, Texas, 75185-2135.

6. What is the fee for Form 1-829?

To be considered properly filed, Form 1-829 must

be accompanied by the fee required under 8 CFR 103 7(b)(1), which is $345

7. What other documents are filed with Form 1-829? Under 8 CFR 216.6(a)(4), the petition for removal of conditions must be accompanied by evidence that
• a commercial enterprise was estabhshed by the alien entrepreneur/investor; • the alien entrepreneur/investor invested or was acUvely m the process of investing the
requisite capital; • the alien entrepreneur/investor sustained the actions at (1) and (2) throughout the period of
h_s or her residence m the United States, and; • the alien entrepreneur/investor created or can be expected to create w_thin a reasonable time
ten full-time jobs for quahfylng employees.

8. Are the entrepreneur/investor's

spouse and child required to file senar,qto applications?

Under 8 CFR 216.6(a), they should be included in the con&tional resldent's petmon on Form

1-829, at Part 3. Children who have reached the age of twenty-one, chddren who have

married during Lhe period of conditional permanent residence, and the former spouse of an

entrepreneur, who was divorced from the entrepreneur during the period of conditional

residence., may be included in the condltxonal resident's peution on Form 1-829.

petxtlon or may file a separate

. Will entrepreneurs/investors

remain in status after-they file Form 1-829?

Under 8 CFR 216.6(a), upon receipt of a properly filed Form 1-829, the allen's conditional

permanent resident status shall be extended automatical/y, if necessary, untd such nine as the

director has adjudicated the petition. The Form 1-829 receipt notice will state that-the

conditional resident's Form 1-551, Permanent Resident Card, is extended for one year. If the

petition is not adjudicated within this ume period, the conditional resident, ffnecessary,

should contact the district office nearest to where he or she is living thwty (30) days before

the Form 1-551 expiration date is reached for further documentation regarding status and

employment.

10. Can entrepreneurs/investors

travel after filing Form 1-829?

Under 8 CFR 216 6(a)(3), an ahen entrepreneur who has filed Form 1-829 is authorized to

Memorandumfor RegionalDirectors,etc.

Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant InvestorPemions--Form1-829Adjudication

c'- *-f_r"

"

Page 18

travel outside the United States and return if in possession of appropriate documentation.

The regulation at 8 CFR 211.1 (a)(5) authorizes admission if an alien presents an expired Form 1-551, Permanent Resident Card, accompanied by a filing receipt issued within the

previous 6 months for a Form 1-829, if seeking admission or readmission after a temporary

absence of less than 1 year. (Some filing receipts may authorize travel for up to 1 year.)

Waivers from visa requirements may be obtained under 8 CFR 211. l(b). District offices are authorized to issue (a) a temporary 1-551 stamp with a 12-month expiration date in the

petiuoner's unexpired, foreign passport (if the expiration date of the passport is one year or

more), or (b) if the petiuoner is not in possession of an unexpired foreign passport, a Form 1-

94 (amval portion) containing a temporary 1-551 stamp with a 12-month expiration date and a photograph of the petitioner. An alien entrepreneur may wish to contact his or her local INS distinct office to discuss the travel planned and determine the routine procedures of that

office fo" obtaining such necessary travel documentation. If necessary, thirty (30) days

before the explrauon of the Form 1-829, the conditional resident should contact the dtstrict

office nearest to where he or she is hving for such documentation outside of the United States.

for purposes of travel

3. The AFM Table of Contents is revised and a new Appendix 22-2 is added to read as follows:

MODEL NOTICES TO APPEAR

(NTAs) - Note: The allegations

Appendix 22-2 must be appr_epriately

modified in me case of NTAs issued for derivanves (i.e., spouse and children).

FOR IMMIGRANT ENTREPRENEUR

TERMINATED

FORM 1-829 (for Dlsmct Office use)

DUE TO FAILURE TO FILE

A. Termination of Conditional ALLEGATIONS:

Permanent Residence

(Entry on Immigrant Visa)

1. You are not a citizen or national of the United States;

2 You are a native of

and a citizen of

;

3 On

, you were lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence

on a conditional basis based on your engagement/investment

in a new commercial enterprise

known as

4. Your status was terminated on Request for Removal of Conditions (Form 1-829).

because you failed to properly file the

CHARGE:

Secuon 237(a)(l)(D)(i)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), as amended, m that after

admission or adjustment as an alien law'fully admitted for permanent reszdence on a conditional

basis under section 216A of the Act your status was terminated under such respectwe section.

Memorandumfor RegionalDirectors,etc.

Subject: AFM Update: ImmigrantInvestorPetitions--Form1-829Adjudication

•.- ,of_."

•

Page 19

B. Termination ALLEGATIONS:

of Conditional

Permanent

Residence

(Adjustment)

1. You are not a cittzen or national of the United States;

2, You are a nattve of 3. You were admitted

and a citizen of to the United States at

; as a

nonimmigrant; 4. On

your status was adjusted to that of a permanent resident on a

conditional basts based upon your engagement/investment

in a new commercial

enterprise known as

5 Your status was termmated on

because you fatled to file a Request to

Remove Conditions (Form 1-829).

CHARGE:

Section 237(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Immigration and natlonahty Act (Act), as amended, In that after admission or adjustment as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a condttional bas_s under Secuon 216A of the Act your status was terminated under such respective section.

FOR IMMIGRANT SUBSTANTIVE

INVESTOR/ALIEN

ENTREPRENEUR

TERMINATED

DENIAL OF FORM 1-829 (tbr DISTRICT OFFICE use)

DUE TO

C. Termination of Conditional ALLEGATIONS:

Permanent

Residence

(Entry on Immigrant Visa)

1. You are not a citizen or natmnal of the United States,

2. You are a nauve of

and a ciuzen of

;

3. On

, you were lawfully admttted to the United States for permanent

residence on a conditional basis based on your engagement/investment

in a new commercial

enterprise known as

4. Your Recluest for Removal of Conditional Residence was denied by the Dtstrict Dtrector

on

because you failed to meet the requirements necessary to remove the

conditions on your status.

CHARGE: Secuon 237(a)(1)(D)(i) of the Immtgrauon and Nationahty Act (Act), as amended, in that after admission or adjustment as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a con&tional basts under section 216A of the Act your status was terminated under such respecuve section.

D. Termination

of Conditional Permanent Residence

(Adjustment)

Memorandum for Regional Directors, etc. Subject: AFM Update: Immigrant Investor PeUtlons--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 20

ALLEGATIONS:

1. You are not a citizen or national of the United States;

2. You are a native of

and a citizen of

;

3. You (entered without inspection, were paroled, or were admitted to the United States at

as a nonirnmigrant) (specify);

4. On

your status was adjusted to that of a permanent resident on a

conditional basis based on your engagement/investment

in a new commercial enterprise

known as

5. Your Request for Removal of Condmonal Residence was denied by the District Director

on

because you failed to meet the requirements necessary to remove the

conditions on your status.

CHARGE:

Section 237(a)(l)(D)(i)

of the Immlgration and Nationality Act (Act), as amended, in that after

admission or adjustment as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence on a conditional

basis under section 216A of the Act your status was terminated under such respective section

4. The AFM Table of Contents is revised and a new Appendix 22-3 is added to read as follows

Appendix 22-3

MODEL NOTICE OF AUTOMATIC TERMINATION

OF CONDITIONAL

RESIDENCE OF IMMIGRANT INVESTOR/ALIEN

ENTREPRENEUR

BASED

FAILURE TO PROPERLY FILE FORM 1-829 PETITION.

UPON

Notice of Conditional Resident Status Termination

A review of the records of the Immigration and Naturahzation you were admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent admission or adjustment].

Service (Service) reveals that resident on [insert date of

In accordance with the provisions of section 216A(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act (the Act), you were required to file a petition (Form 1-829) requesting removal of the

conditional basis of residence between [insert date 21 months after date of admission or

adjustment] and [insert date 24 months after date ofadmission or adjustment]

As of this date,

the Service has no record that you have filed such a petition.

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions permanent residence status previously accorded months after date of admission or adjustment].

of Section 216A(c)(2)(A) you is hereby terminated

of the Act, the as of [insert date 24

Memorandum for Regional Directors, etc. Subject: AFM Update: immigrant Investor Petitions--Form

1-829 Adjudication

Page 21

All privileges that you have derived from the status, including the privileges to reside and work in the United States, are terminated concurrently

A Notice to Appear is attached, or will be forwarded under separate cover to you. Your file

is being forwarded to the Office of District Counsel of the INS District Office having jurisdiction

over the location of your last known address. All inquines should be made to the D_strict Counsel Office.

In accordance with section 216A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, you may request review of thls

determination in removal proceedings

In those proceedings, you shall have the burden of

proving your compliance with the requirement to file the petition (Form 1-829) within the

designated period.

Smcere[y,

Director

5 The AFM Table of Contents is revised and a new Appendix 22-4 is-added to read as follows

Appendix 22-4

POINTS OF CONTACT

FOR EB-5 CASES

Quesuons about ADJUDICATIONS (202) 353-8177.

issues may be directed to Katharme A. Lorr at HQADN,

Questmns about INVESTIGATIONS (202) 514-0747.

Issues may be directed to Maryatm Maillet at HQINV

Questions about legal issues from regional or district counsel offices may be directed to Susan MathlaS at HQCOU, (202) 514-2895-

Questions from service center directors or district directors regarding the procedures outlined in these instructions may be directed to the regional EB-5 POC at the following numbers: Western Regional Office - 949-360-3314; Central Regional Office - 214-767-7430; Eastern Regional Office - 802-660-5036

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(C)
AND CIRCUIT RULE 32-1 FOR CASE Nos. 01-56266 and 01-56379
I certify that the attached brief compiles with the type-volume limitations of
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of
14 points or more, and contains 4,038 words.

Dated: September 13, 2002

jO___ C. CUNN1NGH_

_

Senior Litigation Counsel Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-0601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2002, I directed that two

copies of the foregoing Reply Brief for Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant

be

served upon counsel for plaintiffs-appellants/cross-appellees

by deposit in the

established Department of Just_ce mail collection location in sufficient time for

same-day collection and transrmttal to the U.S. Postal Service for first-class

madmg addressed to:

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. 2650 S.W. 27th Avenue Second Floor
Miami, Florida 33134

Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. 180 Sutter Street Fifth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104

.C
Semor Litigation Counsel Office of Immigration Litxgat_on Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 307-0601

 
 01-56266; 01-56379

In the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit

FILED
SFP 0 3 2002
CKI'HY A. CATTER_E)N, CLERK U. __.COURT OF APPEALS

Wen-Wan CHANG, et. al. Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees

VI
United States of America Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant

Cross Appeal

On Cross Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx)

PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/CROSS

APPELLEES'

(REPLY) BRIEF

THIRD CROSS APPEAL

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli PA 2650 SW 27 th Avenue, 2 nd floor Miami, FL 33133 Tel: 305.444.0060; Fax. 305.444.3503

Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. (State Bar No.: 80778) Van Der Hout, & Brigagliano 180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel. (415) 981-3000; Fax. (415) 981-3003

01-56266; 01-56379

In the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit

Wen-Wan CHANG, et. al. Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees
V.
United States of America Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant

Cross Appeal

On Cross Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Califomia
Case No.: CV 99-10518-GHK(AJWx)

PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS/CROSS

APPELLEES'

(REPLY) BRIEF

THIRD CROSS APPEAL

Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. (State Bar No.: 71563) Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli PA 2650 SW 27 th Avenue, 2 ndfloor Miami, FL 33133 Tel: 305.444.0060; Fax. 305.444.3503

Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. (State Bar No.: 80778) Van Der Hout, & Brigagliano 180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel. (415) 981-3000; Fax. (415) 981-3003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................

iv

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................

viii

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ...................................................................

ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................

1

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................

6

Response to Arguments Raised by the Government on Appeal

I°

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF CHIANG'S CLAIMS ........................ 6

A. The Standard Of Review Is De Novo ..................................... .............. 7

Bo

There Is A Strong Presumption In Favor Of Prompt, Full, and

Adequate Judicial Review ....................................................................

7

C.

The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Because Congress Has Not Required The Investors to Seek Review :

Of Their Claims In A Removal Proceeding .........................................

8

D°

The Government Cannot Circumvent The Holding Of Darby Which

Affords Immediate Access Simply By Characterizing A Removal

Proceeding As A Special Statutory Proceeding ................................. 12

Eo

The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Because Any Possible Existing Special Statutory Review Proceeding

Is Inadequate To Address And Fully Develop The Investors

Constitutional, Statutory, and Equitable Claims ................................ 20

II. THIS COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE GOVERNMENT'S APPEAL BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION TO REMAND PLAINTIFF CHIANG'S RETROACTIVITY CLAIMS TO THE INS IS NOT A FINAL AND APPEALABLE ORDER .............................. 23

A. The Standard Of Review Is De Novo .................................................

23

B°

This Court Has No Jurisdiction Over The Government's Challenge To

The District Court's Order Concerning Retroactivity As An Order To

Remand Is Not A Final And Appealable Order ................................. 24

Co

The District Court Correctly Determined That The Montgomery Ward

Retroactivity Analysis Is Relevant._ ...................................................

26

° This Court's Retroactivity Analysis Is Appropriate Where There Is A Retroactive Application of Any Type Of Agency Rule, Not Simply Legislative Rules Subject To Notice And Comment ....... 28

, The INS Application Of The Precedent Decisions To The

Investors' 1-829 Petitions Involves A Retroactive Application Of

Law. ...............................................................................................

29

. The Montgomery Ward Analysis Determines The Proper Rule Of

Law To Be Applied By Determining Whether A Retroactive

Application Of Law Is Permissible - It Is Not A Waiver As The

Government Asserts ......................................................................

33

Reply to Arguments Raised In Opposition To The Investors' Arguments

III. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DISTINGUISHED THE "FIRM PREDICTION" RULE AND ONLY SPECULATES THAT THE 1-829 PETITIONS COULD BE DENIED ON OTHER GROUNDS .......... 35

IV. THE INVESTORS'

CLASS IS SUFFICIENTLY

COMMON AND

WOULD SERVE THE INTERESTS OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY ............ 36

A°

The Investors' Class Action Challenges The INS' Policy Of

Retroactively Applying New Law To Their Cases, Not The

Application of That Law .....................................................................

36

B. Judicial Economy Is Served By Permitting A Class Action .............. 40

V°

THE INVESTORS HAVE PROPERLY AVERRED AFFIRMATIVE

MISCONDUCT _............ _..............................................................................

41

Ao

Affirmative Misconduct Does Not Require Proof Of An Improper

Purpose ...............................................................................................

41

B°

The Investors Estoppel Claim Is Based On Their Reliance Interest In

Their Own 1-526 Approvals, Not Reliance On Other Investors' 1-829

Petitions ..............................................................................................

44

C°

The Mistake Defense Is Not Applicable Where An Individual Relies

On Her Own Official Approval As Opposed To Another Individual's

Decision ..............................................................................................

45

VI. THE INVESTORS' APA NOTICE AND COMMENT CHALLENGE IS

NOT CONTROLLED BY R.L. INVESTMENT BECAUSE IT ARISES IN

AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL CONTEXT INVOLVING

THE APPLICATION OF A DISTINCT SET OF REGULATIONS AND

INTERESTS FROM THOSE THAT WERE AT ISSUE IN

THAT CASE .................................................................................................

48

AI

The Investors' APA Claims Are Not Controlled By

R.L. Investment ...................................................................................

49

Bo

The Government Relies Exclusively On An Inapplicable Statute To

Refute The Investors' Claim That The Retroactive Application Of The

Precedent Decisions Amended The Narrow Scope Of The 1-829

Proceedings .........................................................................................

51

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................

53

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................

54

PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................

_............................... 56

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Supreme Court

Abbot Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) ........................................

8, 14

American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ................................... 40

Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970) ....................................................................

8

Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) .......................................

8, 13, 14, 20

Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667 (1986) .......... 7, 8

Califanov. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977) ................................................................

22

Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993) .................................................

35

ChengFan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206 (1968) .......................................................

14

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993) ...................................................

1, 9, 10, 12

General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530 (1990) ................................ 11

Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395 (1991) ............................................

11

INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 281 (2001) ........................................................................

30

Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974) .................................................................

7

Landsgrafv. USIFilm Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1995) ...........................................

30

McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479

(1991) ..............................................................................

1, 7, 8, 11, 15, 19, 20

Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471 (1999) .......... 19

Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367 (1962) ............................................................................

8

Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) ........................................................

11

Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48 (1955) ..................................................

14, 19

United States v. Nourse, 34 U.S. 8 (1835) ........... ...................................................

19

United States v. Utah Construction and Mining, 384 U.S. 394 (1966) .................. 49

Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) .................................... , .................................. 7

Court of Appeals

Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1998) .........................................................

15

Abedi-Tajrishi v. INS, 752 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1985) ..............................................

23

Alaska Professional Hunters Ass 'n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ........ 51

Arizona Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Southern Pacific, 68 F.2d 601

(9th Cir. 1934) ...............................................................................................

27

Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................... 8, 15, 24

Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................... 36

Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................

11

iv

Castro v. Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2001) .........................................

11

City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .....................................

16

Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................... 3, 27, 31, 44-49

Eluska v. Andrus, 587 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1978) .................................................

2, 25

Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1993) .......................... 39

FordMotor v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) .....................................

4, 27, 50

Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1994) .......................... 3, 35

George v. Camacho, 119 F.3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1997) ..............................................

27

Ghorbani v. INS, 686 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1982) ......................................................

23

Hanlon v. Chrysler, 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)...: ............................................

37

Jaa v. U.S. INS, 779 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1986) ........................................................

11

Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................ 3, 43, 44, 49

Kashani v. Nelson, 793 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1986) ...................................................

21

Local Joint Executive Board of CulinaryBartender

Trust Fund v. Las Vegas

Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................

39

Ma v. Reno, 114 F.3d 128 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................

7

Maceren v. District Director, INS, 509 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1975) .................... 27, 43

Mohammadi-Motlagh

v. INS, 727 F.2d 1450 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................ 23

Montgomery Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982) ..................... 2, 24-31, 35

NLRB v. GuyF. Atkinson Co., 195 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1952) ........................... 25, 27 Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Int'l Union v. NLRB, 842 F.2d 1141

(9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................

25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34-35

Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1980) ...........................................

5, 27, 43, 50

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. v. Carter and Tillery Enters., 133 F.3d 1183

(9th Cir. 1998) ..........................................................................................

23-24

Pfaffv. HUD, 88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996) .......................................

4, 27, 49, 50, 51

R.L. Investment v. INS, 278 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001) .................. 4, 28, 41, 42, 43-50

Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) .......... 36

Ruangswang v. INS, 591 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1978) .........................................

5, 27, 50

Rumbles v. Hill 182 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................

7

Safir v. Gibson, 432 F.2d 137 (2d Cir. 1970) ..........................................................

49

Shell Offshore, Inc. v. Babbitt, 238 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2001) ................................. 51

Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001) ..................................................

37

Sun II Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1976) ...................................................

43

United States v. Louisiana-Pacific, 846 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1988) ................. 2, 25, 26

United States v. Southern Ry. Co., 364 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966) ............................. 16

United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1975) ........................................

44

Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998) ......................... 8, 15, 24, 37, 38, 39

Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) ................ 3, 42, 44, 49

Williams v. Unum Life Insurance, 160 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................... 2, 25

Wong v. Department of State, 789 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................ 16

Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442 (9th Cir. 1994) .. 5, 50

Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1997) ...........................................

1, 9, 10, 16

District Court

Crisci v. Shalala, 169 F.R.D. 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ...............................................

39

Gestuvo v. District Director, INS, 337 F. Supp. 1093 (C.D. Cal. 1971) ............ 4, 45

Guckenberger v. Boston University, 957 F. Supp. 306 (D. Mass. 1997) ............... 38

Nyaga v. Ashcroft, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Ga. 2002) ....................................

16

Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio

1974) ........................................................................................................................

16

Rhode v. City of West Lafayette, 850 F. Supp. 753 (N.D. Ind. 1993) ..................... 16

Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Wash. 1996) ....................................

39

Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 845 F. Supp. 705 (D. Ariz. 1993) ......................... 38

Administrative material

Matter Matter Matter Matter

ofCenatice, Et AI., 16 I. & N. Dec. 162 (BIA 1977) .................................. 22 of Hector Ponce De Leon-Ruiz, 21 I. & N. Dec. 154 (BIA 1996) .............. 22 of Hernandez-Puente, 20 I. & N. Dec. 335 (BIA 1991) ............................. 21 oflzumiL Int. Dec. No. 3360, 21 I. & N. Dec. 201 (BIA 1998) ...... 48, 49-50

Statutes

5U.S.C. § 702 ...........................................................................................................

7

5U.S.C. § 703 ...................................................................................

6, 13, 15, 17, 20

5U.S.C. § 704 ...............................................................................

6, 9, 13, 15, 17, 20

8U.S.C. § 1160(e)(1), (3) .......................................................................................

11

_A§ 212(a)(9)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii) .............................................

19

_A§ 216A(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(3)(B) ...........................................................

51

_A§ 216A(3)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(3)(D) ....................................................

18, 20

_A§ 216A(b)(1)(A)-(C),

8 U.S.C. § 1186b(b)(1)(A)-(C) ....................................

52

_A§ 216A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(b)(1)(C) ........................................

5, 51-52

_A§ 216A(d)(1)(A)-(C),

8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1)(A)-(C) ....................................

52

_A§ 216A(d)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(l)(C) ...........................................

31, 51

vi

INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) ............................................................ 15, 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) ........................................................................................ 22 INA § 242(b)(9), 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(9) .................................................................. 15 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................... ........................................................................... iv 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ...................................................................................................... iv 28 U.S.C. § 1346 ...................................................................................................... iv 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ...................................................................................................... iv

Regulations

8 C.F.R. 8 C.F.R. 8 C.F.R. 8 C.F.R.

§ 205.2 ...................................................................................................... § 216(1)(c)(iii) .......................................................................................... § 216.6(c)(1) ............................................................................................. § 216.6(d)(2) ...................................................................................

10 31 31 1, 12, 19

Other Material

FED. R. APe. P. 4(1)(B) ............................................................................................ ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES ACT (1947) ..................................................................

iv 10, 13, 17

vii

JURISDICTIONAL

STATEMENT

The district court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action is predicated

on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and 28 U.S.C. § 1346. This Court has

subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross

Appellees' appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. This Court, however, does not have subject matter

jurisdiction over the Defendant/Appellee/Cross

Appellant's appeal to the extent

that it challenges a non-final order to remand as discussed infra.

The district court's order [Docket Entry ("DE") 58], granting in part and

denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and for judgment on the pleadings, was entered on May 3, 2001. Judgment was

entered on May 7, 2001. [DE 59]. Both the Plaintiffs and Defendant filed cross motions to reconsider this judgment. [DE 61, 63]. Both of these motions were: denied in orders entered on June 14, 2001. [DE 70, 71].
The Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on July 2, 2001. [DE 72]. The

Defendant filed a cross notice of appeal on July 24, 2001. [DE 73]. The Plaintiffs' notice of appeal is timely pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(1)(B).

viii

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ON THE GOVERNMENT'S CROSS-APPEAL

I.

Whether the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over

Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 denial where (a) the agency had entered a final and non-

appealable order with immediate, concrete, and deleterious effect that was not

rendered inoperative pending review; (b) Congress has not expressed in clear mandatory language that exhaustion of intra-agency remedies was required or that

the district court had no jurisdiction to consider the matter; and (c) the purported statutory review mechanism is wholly inadequate to remedy the investors'

constitutional, Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and equitable claims.

II. Whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the district court's order to remand Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 denial to the agency for further consideration when orders to remand are generally not final and appealable orders.

III. Whether the district court properly determined that this Circuit's retroactivity jurisprudence was relevant to the INS decision to apply the new criteria announced in Izumii in the adjudication of the investors' 1-829 petitions.

ix

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The denial of the investors' 1-829 petitions to remove the conditions of their residency is a final and non-appealable administrative action that results in an immediate and concrete injury to the Plaintiffs (hereinat_er "investors"). 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2). Congress has neither mandated the exhaustion of further administrative remedies nor made the deleterious consequences inoperative if an investor chooses to pursue an optional limited intra-agency review proceeding. Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993); Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1997). The government has pointed to no clear congressional intent to expressly preclude the district court's review of the investors' claims and to no statute that mandates that the investors seek review of their 1-829 denial in a removal proceeding which would then be channeled to the Court of Appeals. Here, requiring the individuals to resort to initial review in removal proceedings is inadequate and would effectively foreclose meaningful review. See, e.g., McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991). Indeed, the investors' constitutional, equitable, and statutory challenges are wholly outside of the narrow purpose and scope of removal proceedings. As such, immediate, full, and adequate judicial review is appropriate in the district court.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over the government's appeal of the district

court's extremely deferential order remanding Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 denial to the INS for consideration in light of Montgomery Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th

Cir. 1982). This order to remand is not final and appealable, particularly where the

district court has not dictated a particular result and the agency has the authority to

engage in such considerations.

See Eluska v. Andrus, 587 F.2d 996 (9th Cir.

1978); United States v. Louisiana-Pacific, 846 F.2d 43, 44 (9th Cir. 1988); see also

Williams v. Unum Life Insurance, 160 F.3d 1247, 1249-51 (9th Cir. 1998).

If this Court does find that it has jurisdiction; it should determine that

Montgomery Ward is properly applicable. Indeed, this Court has a long standing

tradition of refusing to uphold an administrative agency's application of new rules

or policies retroactively to the detriment of a regulated entity. The government's

challenge to the district court's determination that Montgomery Ward is relevant is

predicated on several fundamental misunderstandings about the doctrine. First, the

retroactivity analysis is relevant to any type of agency rule, not just legislative

rules that are subject to notice and comment rule making.

Second, the

government's conduct in this case does constitute a retroactive application of law.

Third, the application of the Montgomery Ward analysis is not a "hardship"

waiver, but rather a legal analysis to determine if a new rule of law is being

impermissibly retroactively applied.

The investors and class members whose 1-829s have not yet been denied have ripe claims because under this Court's test it can be firmly predicted that their petitions will be denied on improper grounds. Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1994). The government has made no real effort to distinguish or seriously challenge the investors' argument that it can be firmly predicted that all of their 1-829 petitions will be denied on grounds based on the new criteria. Instead, it responds with pure abstract speculation that is insufficient to overcome all favorable inferences entitled to the investors at the pleading stage.
The district court also should have certified the investors class action in order to efficiently prosecute this case. The government's assertion that their class lacks commonality is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of their claims. The investors are not challenging the substantive results in their case, but rather the government's unlawful conduct in promulgating new criteria without notice and comment, and retroactively applying it to their petitions.
The investors have properly alleged affirmative misconduct under the appropriate analysis utilized by this Court (en banc). Watkins v. United States Army, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989). The investors have likewise fully demonstrated that they have a strong reliance interest in their own approved 1-526 petitions. Id.; Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1982); Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997); Gestuvo v. District Director, INS, 337 F. Supp.

1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 1971). The government has failed to address the argument the investors actually made on appeal supported by this very clear precedent. Instead, it mischaracterizes their arguments and frames them as the ones made by the litigants in R.L. Investment v. 1NS, 278 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001), adopting, 86

F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Haw. 2000), without acknowledging context of each case.

the distinct factual

The district court also erred in dismissing the investors' APA claims

asserting a violation of the notice and comment requirements.

The precedent

decisions in fact do amend and add new criteria to the regulations, statute, and/or

the INS' longtime consistent policy and practice.

The government assertion that all of the investors' APA notice and comment

claims are foreclosed by R.L. Investment is without merit. First, in contrast to R.L.

Investment, the investors in this case do not assert that INS contravened a rule of

law represented only by other investors' unpublished opinions and general counsel

memoranda. Here, the investors principally rely on the rule of law that was

applied in their case. It is well settled in this circuit that an individual has strong

reliance interest in their own official determinations.

Thus, the investors'

challenge in this case fits squarely within this line of cases represented by: Pfaffv. HUD, 88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996); FordMotor Co. v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008, 1009-

10 (9th Cir. 1981); Yesler Terrace Community Council v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 442,

449 (9th Cir. 1994); Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199, 1203-05 (9th Cir.1980); Ruangswang v. INS, 591 F.2d 39, 44 (9th Cir.1978). Second, R.L. Investment did not foreclose the necessity of notice and comment where an agency contravenes a longstanding policy or practice. Rather, based on the limited facts in that case, the Court was unable to discern a policy. Here, however, the investors' complaint alleges that a policy was formed over seven years in thousands of approvals.
Moreover, in the government's attempt to refute the clear legislative change to the scope of the 1-829 proceedings, the government points this Court to and relies exclusively on a so-called "catchall termination" provision. INA § 216A(b)(1 )(C), 8 U.S.C. § l 186b(b)(1 )(C). The provision that the government cites is not part of, nor applicable to, the adjudication of the investors' 1-829 petitions. As such, its contentions should be rejected.

ARGUMENT

Response to Arguments Raised by the Government on Appeal

I.

THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY

EXERCISED

SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF CHIANG'S CLAIMS

In an attempt to overcome the strong presumption of prompt and adequate review, the government has advanced the argument that 5 U.S.C. §§703 and 704 bar jurisdiction in the district court. These provisions prove illusory in support of the government's argument that "the correct test is whether Section 216A and related provisions of the INS provide adequate judicial review. If so, APA

jurisdiction does not arise." Government's Cross Appeal Brief at 21. Indeed, the Supreme Court has interpreted the preclusive language in these APA provisions very narrowly and has determined that they are no more than a codification of the traditional finality and exhaustion requirements.
Even if the government is correct and the APA limits direct district court review, these provisions only channel review to the purported special statutory

scheme if it is adequate to redress the claims at issue. Both the Supreme Court and this Court have not hesitated to allow immediate access to the district court where

a special statutory review procedure proves inadequate to address or fully develop a particular claim. Here, the proposed procedure is wholly inadequate to address the investors' claims and, as such, direct review remains available in the district court.

A. The Standard Of Review Is De Novo

This Court reviews assesses questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.

Mav. Reno, 114 F.3d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1997).

The question of whether

administrative remedies must be exhausted is likewise a matter of law that is

reviewed de novo. Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 1999).

B. There Is A Strong Presumption In Favor Of Prompt, Full, and Adequate Judicial Review

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the strong presumption that

Congress intends adequate judicial review of administrative action. See, e.g.,

McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991); Webster v. Doe, 486

U.S. 592, 603 (1988); Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 373-74 (1974). Indeed, a

"right of review" has been codified in the APA. 5 U.S.C. § 702 ("A person

suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved

by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial

review thereof").

The right to review is not simply a right to some review, but rather to full,

effective, meaningful, and prompt review. While Congress has a measure of

authority to limit review, precondition access to judicial review (i.e. require prior

exhaustion of administrative remedies), and to channel review to a special statutory

proceeding, this authority is deemed exceptional, and prompt access to full and

effective remedies is presumed absent very clear evidence of a contrary

congressional intent. See Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166-67 (1970) (Judicial

review "is the rule, and non-reviewability

an exception which must be

demonstrated"); Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 (1967) (non-

reviewability must be demonstrated by "clear and convincing evidence of a

contrary legislative intent"); Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367, 379-80 (1962).

Notably, where either administrative or other special statutory review

provisions threaten to afford less than full and adequate review, the Supreme Court

and this Court have not hesitated to uphold an aggrieved party's prompt access to

the district court which would afford greater redress and a broader opportunity to

develop a claim than would not otherwise be available in the more limited statutory

scheme. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479 (1991); Bowen

v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670 (1986); Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988); Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228

(9th Cir. 1999); Waiters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998).

C. The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because Congress Has Not Required The Investors To Seek Review Of Their Claims In A Removal Proceeding

Absent very clear and plain language foreclosing immediate judicial review,

the district court's subject matter jurisdiction is unaffected by the availability of a

non-mandatory, alternative, and speculative administrative procedure. See, e.g.,

Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993); Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1997).
It is well established that "an appeal tO 'superior agency authority' is a prerequisite to judicial review only when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review and the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review." See Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. at 153 (emphasis in original).
The Supreme Court's decision in Darby is very clear. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is only required where it is mandated by the statute or administrative rule. Darby, 509 U.S. at 146 ("When an aggrieved party has exhausted all administrative remedies expressly prescribed by statute or agency rule, the agency action is 'final for purposes of this section' and therefore 'subject to judicial review'"). The Court further stated that "it would be inconsistent with the plain language of [5 U.S.C. § 704] for courts to require litigants to exhaust optional appeals as well." Id. at 147.
The government can point to no language in the Immigrant Investor Law that either mandates or requires an investor to seek further administrative review once the district director has denied an 1-829 petition. Rather, the regulations and statute indicate that the decision is final, non-appealable, and provides only for collateral review in immigration proceedings. Indeed, the plain language of the

applicable statute provides in pertinent part that "any alien whose permanent

residence status is terminated under subparagraph (c) may request a review.., in a

proceeding to remove the alien." 8 U.S.C. § l186b(c)(3)(D) (emphasis added).

The relevant regulation states:

If, after initial review or after the interview, the director denies the

petition, he or she shall provide written notice to the alien of the

decision and the reason(s) therefore...

NO appeal shall lie from this

decision; the alien may seek review of the decision in deportation

proceedings.

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2) (emphasis added).

The fact that an investor "may" seek review in a removal proceeding,

certainly does not mean "must." Darby, 509 U.S. at 150 ("nothing persuades us

that 'may' means must") (internal quotations omitted); A'I"rORNEY GENERAL'S

MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT 104 (1947) ("However, under

a statute which merely confers upon parties the right to apply for reheating, it is

now clear that an application for such reconsideration need not precede judicial

review").

This Court has held that similar language in the text of 8 C.F.R. § 205.2

stating that a visa petitioner "may appeal the decision" to the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA) did not require the plaintiff to first seek BIA review prior to filing

an action in the district court. See Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879, 881-82 (9th Cir.

1997) ("[W]e conclude that, because the regulations do not explicitly require a

10

petitioner to appeal to the BIA prior to seeking judicial review, such intra-agency review is optional"); see also Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001); Jaa v. U.S. INS, 779 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1986); Castillo-Villagra v. INS, 972 F.2d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 1992).
The district court correctly juxtaposed this permissive language against the mandatory language utilized in 8 U.S.C. § l l60(e)(1) ("there shall be no administrative or judicial review of a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status under this section except in accordance with this subsection"); 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(3) (expressly limiting judicial review to an order of deportation or exclusion). Clearly, had Congress desired that investors seek initial review in a i'emoval proceeding, it certainly could have utilized different language.' Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. at 496 ("It is presumable that Congress legislates with knowledge of our basic rules of statutory construction, and given our well-settled presumption favoring interpretations of statutes that allow judicial review of administrative action").
Furthermore, a denial of an 1-829 petition is a final and non-appealable agency action with very immediate concrete injuries:
i It should be noted that "[w]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of ihe same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395,404 (1991); Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983); see General Motors Corp. v. United States, 496 U.S. 530, 541 (1990).
11

The alien's lawful permanent residence shall be terminated as of the date of the director's written decision. The alien shall also be
instructed to surrender any Permanent Resident Card issued by the Service.

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2). 2 The fact that neither the regulation nor the statute render

the harsh consequences of a denial inoperative pending review is further evidence

that exhaustion is not required. See Darby, 509 U.S. at 137 ("an appeal..,

is a

prerequisite to judicial review only when . . . the administrative action is made

inoperative pending that review").

D. The Government

Cannot Circumvent

the Holding Of Darby

Which Affords Immediate Access Simply By Characterizing

A

Removal Proceeding As A Special Statutory Proceeding

The government contends that the district court has no jurisdiction over the

INS' final agency action - which causes immediate and concrete injuries - simply

because the government opines that Congress has specified a special statutory

review proceeding in the form of review in a removal hearing followed by a

petition for review.

2 With the termination of lawful residence, an investor and his or her family members lose their lawful status in the United States and their right to live and work in this country. Without lawful status, they begin to accrue unlawful presence that will be used to prevent them from returning to the United States for a period of either three to ten years or seeking further immigration benefits if they remain.
12

To support its novel theory, the government invokes 5 U.S.C. §§ 7033 and
704.4 The government essentially contends that these provisions foreclose
immediate access to district court review if there is adequate review available in a
"special statutory proceeding." Of course, the government asserts that a removal
proceeding followed by a petition for review is the "special statutory provision"
envisioned by §§ 703 and 704 and thus is the exclusive route for the immigrant to
seek review. This argument is essentially an attempt to breathe new life into the
government's contention that the investors should further exhaust administrative
remedies. The government's repackaged exhaustion argument too must fail.
Initially, the government's analysis of 5 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 704 fails totake
account that the preclusive nature of these provisions must be narrowly construed.
See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. at 903-904 ("the exception that was
intended to avoid duplication should not be construed to defeat the central purpose
3 5 U.S.C. § 703 states in pertinent part that "the form of proceeding for judicial review is the special statutory review proceeding relevant to the subject matter in a court specified by statute or, in the absence or inadequacy thereof, any applicable form of legal action, including actions for declaratory judgments or writs of prohibitory or mandatory injunction or habeas corpus, in a court of competent jurisdiction." 4 5 U.S.C. § 704 states in pertinent part that "[a]gency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review." The reference to "court" in this provision references "special statutory review proceeding." § 703. See ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE'S ACT I01 (1947) ("Furthermore, this provision does not provide additional judicial remedies in situations where the Congress has provided special and adequate review procedures. See the first clause of section 10 (b)") (note that 10(b) refers to § 703).
13

of providing a broad spectrum of judicial review of agency action") (emphasis

added); Abbott Laboratories, 387 U.S. at 140-41 ("this Court has echoed that

theme by noting that the Administrative Procedure Act's 'generous review

provisions' must be given a 'hospitable' interpretation").

Indeed, the Court in

Bowen v. Massachusetts further explained that "a restrictive interpretation of § 704

would unquestionably . . . run counter to §10 and §12 of the Administrative

Procedures Act. Their purpose was to remove obstacles to judicial review of

agency action under subsequently enacted statutes." Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487

U.S. at 904, quoting Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U.S. 48, 51 (1955). The narrow

construction that courts must give to "preclusive" nature of these provisions is:

particularly relevant here where the government cannot point to a single express

intention of Congress to mandate exhaustion of removal proceedings and to only

review the denial of an 1-829 petition in the Court of Appeals.

When properly narrowly construing these provisions and broadly presuming prompt and immediate access to judicial review, the government's argument

clearly fails. There is no clear and express Congressional intent that the investors

are even required to exhaust review in a removal proceeding or to only seek review

on a petition for review. 5

5 See Cheng Fan Kwok v. INS, 392 U.S. 206, 214 (1968) (if Congress had wanted the judicial preclusion statute to embrace "all determinations directly affecting the execution of a final deportation order.., it would have known how to say so").
14

The special judicial section of the Act narrowly excepts district court

jurisdiction and instead channels review to the Court of Appeals for one form of

final agency action only - a final order of removal. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1) ("Judicial review of a final order of removal.., chapter 158 of Title 28") (emphasis added). 6

is governed only by

The government is essentially trying to use §§ 703 and 704 to read language

into the judicial review provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that just

simply is not there. The INA's judicial review provision is not all inclusive and

does not state that review of other otherwise final agency action, such as the denial

of an 1-829 petition, should be brought in a petition for review. Indeed, this

provision has been repeatedly narrowly construed, and does not preclude district

court jurisdiction of other final agency acts. Abboud v. 1NS, 140 F.3d 843, 847

(9th Cir. 1998) ("district courts have jurisdiction over final orders of the INS that

6 Moreover, judicial review in the district court is not foreclosed by INA §

242(b)(9), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) ("judicial review.., arising from action taken or

proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States . . . shall be

available only in judicial review under this section") (emphasis added). The

promulgation and retroactive application of new retroactive criteria under the

Immigrant Investor Law and the denial of 1-829 petitions are events that occur

outside of the removal hearing process and as such are not precluded under this

narrowly construed provision. See Baharona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th

Cir. 1999); Waiters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998). Indeed, in light of the

investors' constitutional, equitable, and APA notice and comment claims,

meaningful judicial review would be precluded, as discussed infra, if they were

required to exhaust these futile proceedings. at 496.

See Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S.

15

do not involve deportation itself"); Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1997)
(revocation of visa petition); Wong v. Department of State, 789 F.2d 1380, 1384
(9th Cir. 1986) (L-2 visa revocation); Nyaga v. Ashcrofi, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1244,
1250 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (§ 1252 "refers only to removal proceedings and not to visa
petitions or any other procedures outside the scope of removal proceedings"),
citing H.R. Rep. No. 104-469 at 359, 473.
The cases cited by the government are inapposite and reflect its
unprecedented reading of the statute. Indeed, each of its cases involved very
different situations where the agency judicial review Pr0v!sion, itself, expressly
envisioned and afforded judicial review for the particular agency final act at issue. 7
7 For example the relevant judicial review provision in United States v. Southern Ry. Co. 364 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1966) was very clear that review could only be brought after the exhaustion of administrative remedies and was clearly limited to a three judge court. Id. at 93 ("Again, we point to the language of the legislation before us providing for first, administrative review, and, second, judicial review before a three-judge court 'but not otherwise.' 'Otherwise' has a well defined meaning")(emphasis added). In Rhode v. City of West Lafayette, 850 F. Supp. 753 (N.D. Ind. 1993), the relevant judicial review provision, itself, likewise expressly envisioned review in the court of appeals, ld. at 42, 46 ("The Solid Waste Disposal Act addresses employee protection remedies by providing that an "order issued by the Secretary of Labor under this subparagraph shall be subject to judicial review in the same manner as orders and decisions of the Administrator or subject to judicial review under this chapter .... '[r]eview of the Administrator's action ... may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States'") (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted); See also Pinkney v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 375 F.Supp. 305, 307-08 (N.D. Ohio 1974) (very clear judicial review statute that creates review mechanism in the district court and the court of appeals); City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ("any . . . person who is aggrieved or whose interests are
16

In those cases, the language in §§ 703 and 704, as well as the adequacy of the proceedings, was used simply to bolster the intention that Congress intended to channel review to those proceedings.
This Court should not be seduced by the simplicity of the govemment's novel submission. Here, we are faced with a very different statutory scenario: (1) an optional administrative review procedure that only suggests that the investors "may" seek additional and collateral review in a removal proceeding of their otherwise final agency action; and (2) a judicial review provision that has been narrowly construed to channel only final agency action in the form of a final order of removal to the Court of Appeals.
The government's first mistake is that it presumes that removal proceedings are a part of judicial review. A removal proceeding is not considered part of the "special statutory review proceedings." A special statutory review proceedings, as referenced in § 703, refers to courts. 8

adversely affected" by an FCC order granting or denying an application for a

construction permit may appeal to this court. Similarly, § 1006 of the Federal

Aviation Act provides that '(a)ny order . . . issued by the (FAA) . . . shall be

subject to review' in this court or in another appropriate court of appeals at the

instance of 'any person disclosing a substantial interest' therein'") (internal

citations and footnotes omitted). 8 See ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MANUAL ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEDURE ACT

97 (1947)("many regulatory statutes provide for judicial review of agency action by requiring the complaining party to file with a circuit court of appears (or with a

district court) a writ:ten petition..."). Id. at 101 ("Furthermore, this provision does not provide additional judicial remedies in situations where the Congress has

17

A removal proceeding is simply one of several administrative remedies
provided for in the INA which an aggrieved party may or may not be required to
exhaust before seeking judicial review in the "special statutory proceeding." In the
Immigrant Investor Law, a removal proceeding is simply a suggested avenue for
reconsideration, and limited by statute to factual disputes, not the constitutional,
statutory, and equitable challenges to the INS' administration of the Immigrant Investor Law that are at issue in this case. 9
Second, it is simply incongruous with the APA to infer that removal
proceedings must be exhausted or are a part of the "special statutory proceedings"
where there is no mandatory intent that review be sought in them. Indeed, the
purpose of the APA is to provide prompt and adequate review of individuals who
are aggrieved by agency action. Therefore, it belies logic to infer that Congress
intended investors and their families who are already suffering an immediate
injury, as a result of the termination of their residency, to submit to further injury
provided special and adequate review procedures. See the first clause of section 10 (b). Thus, the Customs Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals retain their present exclusive jurisdictions"). 9 The relevant statutory provision belies the INS' contention that the investors are entitled to raise all applicable legal and factual challenges to the INS' action in the removal proceeding. Indeed, 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(3)(D), INA § 216A(3)(D) refers only to assessing the truth of facts described in the petition: "In such a proceeding, the burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the facts and information described in section (d)(1) of this section and alleged in the petition are not true with respect to the qualifying commercial enterprise." (Emphasis added).
18

(i.e. a final order of removal) l° before they finally have a chance to seek review of the first injury in an Article III court. See Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. at 497 (rejecting that aggrieved aliens with statutory and constitutional challenges were required to await judicial review after a deportation hearing); see also Pedreiro, 349 U.S. at 53 (rejected "additional burden" on alien of naming the INS commissioner, because the "basic policy of the Administrative Procedure Act to facilitate court review of such administrative action").
Third, it must be remembered that the INS retains unfettered and unreviewable discretion to place individuals in removal proceedings. I I Thus, under the government's view, access to an Article III court would be wholly conditioned on a non-reviewable exercise of discretion. It would be highly doubtful that Congress would intend such a result. 12 In any event, this would make meaningful

10A final order of removal results in an additional ten year bar from receiving any

immigration benefits. INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii).

_l See generally Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination

Comm., 525 U.S. 471

(1999). This is the case even though the regulations indicate that the director

"shall issue an order to show cause why the alien should not be deported from the

United States." 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2). Indeed, the INS still retains discretion as

to the timing of when a notice to appear will be issued and when it will be filed

with the immigration court which is what triggers the removal proceeding.

12 See United States v. Nourse, 34 U.S. 8, 28-29 (1835)(Marshall, C.J.)("It would

excite some surprise if, in a government of laws and principle, furnished with a

department whose appropriated duty it is to decide questions of right, not only

between individuals, but between the government and individuals; a ministerial

officer might, at his discretion issue this powerful process.., leaving to the debtor

no remedy, no appeal to the laws of this country, if he should believe the claim to

19

judicial review purely speculative and wholly inadequate. In such situations, the Supreme Court has clearly held that there is immediate access in the district court. See Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. at 496.
E. The District Court Properly Exercised Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because Any Possible Existing Special Statutory Review Proceeding Is Inadequate To Address And Fully Develop The Investors Constitutional, Statutory, and Equitable Claims
Where a special review proceeding is inadequate to address the particular claim at issue, an aggrieved party may seek declaratory or injunctive relief in the district court. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. at 901 ("The Secretary's novel submission that the entire action is barred by § 704 must be rejected because the doubtful and limited relief available in the Claims Court is not adequate substitute for review in the District Court"); Haitian Refugee Center, 498 U.S. at 497 (direct access in district court available because tying review to deportation proceedings was "tantamount to a complete denial of judicial review"); 5 U.S.C. §§ 703,704.
It is simply futile for the investors to utilize a removal proceeding in order to develop an adequate record for judicial review. Congress intended removal proceedings to resolve narrow disputes concerning the truth of the facts and information alleged in the petition. See in INA § 216A(3)(D), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(3)(D) ("the burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to establish...
be unjust. But this anomaly does not exist; this imputation cannot be cast on the legislature of the United States").
20

that the facts and information ... alleged in the petition are not true..."). The

investors however are not challenging the INS' assessment of the truth of the facts

in their petition. They are prosecuting constitutional, APA notice and comment,

and equitable claims challenging the very rule of law that was applied in their case

and the government's unlawful conduct in administering the Immigrant Investor

Law. 13 Moreover, they are seeking to estop the INS from denying their 1-829

petitions in light of the INS' affirmative misconduct in adjudicating their petitions.

The nature of the Plaintiffs' claims takes them wholly outside of the

authority of immigration judges and Board. Initially, the Board may not consider

estoppel against the service. Matter of Hernandez-Puente,

20 I. & N. Dec. 335,

338-39 (BIA 1991)("Board itself and the immigration judges are without authority

to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the Service... ").

Likewise, the investors could not bring their APA notice and comment claims:

_3The investors are not challenging the correctness of the holdings of the precedent decisions, rather the INS' decision to apply them retroactively to their petitions. Thus, the government's suggestion that the investors are free to challenge the holding in removal proceedings is of limited utility. Likewise, the nature of the investors' claims render inapplicable the government's reference to Kashani v. Nelson, 793 F.2d 818 (7th Cir. 1986). In Kashani, the aggrieved asylum applicant was seeking review of the merits of his underlying application in the district court. He was not challenging a violation of constitutional, statutory, or equitable rights, as here. Indeed, the Kashani Court recognized that the district court would have jurisdiction to review certain violation of constitutional and statutory rights. Id. at 823.
21

[T]his Board has never before purported to undertake the responsibility of assessing regulatory compliance with the APA, and I believe it unwise even to begin a practice of making observations in this area where we lack expertise. We ourselves are exclusively a creature of the Attorney General's regulations, and we have properly left it to the courts to resolve questions of APA compliance. Aside from our lack of authority and expertise on APA questions, I find little value in our offering speculation on this subject.

Matter of Hector Ponce De Leon-Ruiz, 21 I. & N. Dec. 154, 165 (BIA

1996)(emphasis added).

In addition, the investors simply cannot obtain review of their constitutional

claims in a removal-hearing. See Matter ofCenatice, Et AI., 16 I. & N. Dec. 162,

• 166 (BIA 1977) ("It is clear, however, that it is not within the province of this

Board to pass upon the constitutionality of the statutes it administers, but rather is

solely within the power and capacity of the United States courts to declare them

unconstitutional");

see also Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 109 (1977)

("constitutional questions are unsuited to resolution in administrative hearing

procedures and, therefore, access to courts is essential to the decision of such

questions"). In addition, if the investors claims are wholly irrelevant to the purpose and

scope ofth e proceedings, an inadequate record will certainly result. Thus, when an

investor is finally allowed access to an Article III court, no meaningful review will

be available because the courts of appeal will be forced to adjudicate on the

inadequate record. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)("The court of appeals shall decide

22

the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is

based"). Indeed, the courts of appeal are strictly constrained in their ability to

independently develop a factual record on the issues relevant to the investors'

complaint, particularly so in the context of immigration. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(the

[court of appeals] may not order the taking of additional evidence under section

2347(c) of Title 28"). Where aggrieved parties raise constitutional or other claims

requiring factual development outside of the scope of removal proceedings, this

Court has traditionally held that the action must be brought in the district court.

See, e.g., Mohammadi-Motlagh

v. INS, 727 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1984)("The

BIA lacked authority to hear and determine these factual issuesand did not do so.

We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider these claims. They must be raised

in the first instance in the district court"); See also Ghorbani v. 1NS, 686 F.2d 784

(9th Cir. 1982); Abedi-Tajrishi v. INS, 752 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1985).

II. THIS

COURT

HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER

THE

GOVERNMENT'S

APPEAL BECAUSE THE DISTRICT COURT'S

DECISION

TO

REMAND

PLAINTIFF

CHIANG'S

RETROACTIVITY

CLAIMS TO THE INS IS NOT A FINAL AND

APPEALABLE ORDER

A. The Standard Of Review Is De Novo

Where exhaustion is not required, the decision of a district court to require or not to require exhaustion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See Pension

23

Benefit Guarantee Corp. v. Carter and Tillery Enters., 133 F.3d 1183, 1187 (9th

Cir. 1998); Baharona-Gomez, 167 F.3d 1228; Walters, 145 F.3d 1032.

B. This Court Has No Jurisdiction Over The Government's

Challenge

To The District Court's

Retroactivity As An Order to Remand

Appealable Order

Order Concerning Is Not A Final And

The district court properly determined that this Court's retroactivity analysis 14was appropriate in this case because the INS had applied one standard

to the adjudication of the investor's initial 1-526 petitions, afterwards

promulgated new criteria, and then applied the new changed criteria to the

adjudication of the Plaintiffs' 1-829 petition to their detriment. [Excerpt of

Record ("ER") at 139]. Rather than apply the retroactivity analysis in the first

instance, the district court in an extreme gesture of deference vacated and

remanded Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 petition so that the INS could "consider [the

retroactivity analysis] and compile an administrative record." [ER at 139]. J5

_4The applicable test for determining whether an agency may apply a new rule in an adjudication is well settled: (1) whether the particular case is one of first impression; (2) whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well established practice or merely attempts to fill a void in an unsettled area of law; (3) the extent to which the party against whom the new rule is applied relied on the former rule; (4) the degree of burden which a retroactive order imposes on a party; and (5) the statutory interest in applying the new rule despite the reliance of a party on the old standard. Montgomery Ward v. FTC, 691 F.2d at 1333. _5 The Investors certainly find it curious that the district court exercised such extreme deference to the INS rather than apply Montgomery Ward in the first instance. Indeed, this Court generally accords no deference to an agency's assessment of whether to retroactively apply new rules, but rather reviews such a
24

The government on appeal has challenged the district court's order

vacating and remanding Plaintiff Chiang's 1-829 petition. This appeal is

improper. This Court does not have jurisdiction over a district court's order remanding a cause to an administrative agency because it is not a final and

appealable order. See Eluska v. Andrus, 587 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1978); United

States v. Louisiana-Pacific, 846 F.2d 43, 44 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Williams v.

Unum Life Insurance, 160 F.3d 1247, 1249-51 (9th Cir. 1998).

Indeed, as the Eluska Court stated:

An order remanding the case for additional or supplementary

evidence, without a review by the court of the administrative record...

is without a doubt an interlocutory order and is not appealable.

Likewise, an order sua sponte by the court for the taking of additional

evidence is not appealable")(emphasis

added).

Eluska, 587 F.2d at 1000.

The district court has simply requested that the INS give "due

consideration" to the Montgomery Ward test in order to give the government an

decisions de novo. Oil, Chemical Atomic Workers International Union v. NLRB, 842 F.2d 1141, 1144 n.2 (9th Cir 1988)("the question of whether new standards should be applied retroactively is one of law, which [the court should] review under the de novo standard"); NLRB v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 195 F.2d 141,148-51 (9th Cir. 1952) (decision of retroactive application not one within agency's special competence, therefore not subject to deference). Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 1999). Thus, it is not the INS' role to make an assessment regarding these legal grounds, but rather for the district court to do so. Nonetheless, the district court's order appears to be within its discretion to remand Plaintiff Chiang's denial to the INS for due consideration and the compilation of an administrative record, as discussed above.

25

""

opportunity to consider the factors raised in Montgomery Ward prior to the

district court's adjudication of the matter. In Louisiana Pacific, this court held

that the district court'sremand of a question of whether a consent decree should

be reopened, altered, or amended to an administrative agency was proper and not a final order because it did not dictate the result of the agency's reconsideration.

846 F.2d at 44. This district court has likewise not dictated a particular result upon the INS consideration.

The govemment's argument that INS is without authority to consider

evidence relevant to the Montgomery Ward factors is without merit. Indeed, the

district court properly ruled "that Congress has notprecluded

Defendant's

consideration of these factors." [ER at 139]. The government's appeal, which

simply challenges a non-final order to remand, should be summarily dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction.

C. The District Court Correctly Determined That The Montgomery Ward Retroactivity Analysis Is Relevant

If this Court does determine that it has jurisdiction over the government's

appeal, it should still be dismissed because the district court properly determined

that the Montgomery Ward retroactivity analysis is relevant. This Court has been

firm in refusing to uphold an administrative agency's application of new rules or

26

policies retroactively to the detriment of a regulated party. 16 This is especially

true where the regulated party not only relied on a practice or policy, but had

received some form of official "approval" of the conduct that was later deemed

non-conforming. See, e.g., Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997);

Maceren v. District Director, 1NS, 509 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1975); Arizona Grocery, 68 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1934). Indeed, this Court starts with the presumption that

such an application is disfavored. See George v. Camacho, 119 F.3d 1393, 1396-

97 (9th Cir. 1997).

The government's challenge to the district court's determination that

Montgomery

Ward is relevant is predicated on several fundamental

misunderstandings about the doctrine. First, the retroactivity analysis is relevant to

any type of agency rule, not just legislative rules that are subject to notice and

comment rule making. Second, the government's conduct in this case does

constitute a retroactive application of law. Third, the application of the

Montgomery Ward analysis is not a "hardship" waiver, but rather a legal analysis

to determine if a new rule of law is being impermissibly retroactively applied.

16See, e.g., Pfaff v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 88 F.3d 739 (9th Cir. 1996); Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 842 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1988); Montgomery Ward Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir. 1982); FordMotor Company v. FTC, 673 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1008); Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1981); Ruangswang v. INS, 591 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1978); Maceren v. District Director, INS, 509 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1975); NLRB v. Guy Atkinson, 195 F.2d 141 (9th Cir. 1952); Arizona Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Southern Pacific, 68 F.2d 601 (9th Cir. 1934).
27

1. This Court's Retroactivity Analysis Is Appropriate Where There Is A Retroactive Application of Any Type Of Agency Rule, Not Simply Legislative Rules Subject To Notice And Comment
The government first argues that Montgomery Ward's retroactivity analysis is not applicable to the instant case because this Court in R.L. Investment, 278 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001), characterized them as interpretive rules. Government's CrossAppeal at 30. This argument has no merit and is belied by this Court's own holding in Montgomery Ward.
In Montgomery Ward, this Court explained that there are circumstances where agency action does not require notice and comment, but nonetheless is impermissibly retroactive. See Montgomery Ward, 691 F.2d at 1334 (noting that interpretation does not require notice and comment, but cease and desist order that invokes penalties for conduct completed before the interpretation is vacated as impermissibly retroactive).
In applying the Montgomery Ward analysis, the relevant question is simply whether there is a retroactive impact resulting from agency action. The government's suggestion that a statute, regulation, or published opinion must somehow be contravened has little to no place in whether an agency action is retroactive. The Montgomery Ward decision is particularly illustrative of this point because in that case the Court determined that the first three factors did not weigh heavily in Ward's favor. Montgomery Ward, 691 F.2d at 1333-34. These three
28

factors notably included the three factors most aligned with the government's

argument (i.e. issue of first impression, abrupt departure from consistent practice,

and reliance). [d. Notwithstanding, this Court still found that the application of a

"cease and desist order" had an impermissible retroactive impact because it

imposed a fine for conduct that was completed prior to the clarification of the

governing standard.

Moreover, the retroactivity analysis is still relevant even if the agency action

at issue is simply a clarification of an uncertain area of law - as the government

suggests is the case in this litigation. _7 See Montgomery Ward, 691 F.2d at 1328

("when a new problem is presented to an administrative agency, the.agency may

act through adjudication to clarify an uncertain area of law, so long as the

retroactive impact of the clarification is not excessive or unwarranted") (emphasis

added). 18

1 The INS Application Of The Precedent Decisions To the

Investors'

1-829 Petitions

Involves A Retroactive

Application Of Law

17See Government's Cross Appeal at 30 where the government--inconsistent

with

the above quoted passage and holding of Montgomery Ward--argues that

Montgomery Ward is not applicable to clarifications. t8 The fact that the precedent decisions were issued in an adjudication versus notice

and comment rulemaking is likewise irrelevant. See Government's Cross Appeal at 27. The irrelevance of the setting is clearly illustrated by Oil, Chemical and Atomic

Workers, which involved the propriety of retroactively applying a rule announced

in adjudication. to retroactively

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 842 F.2d at 1144-45 (refusing apply a new rule which simply shifted a party's burden of proof

before the agency).

29

The government next argues that the Montgomery Ward doctrine is not applicable because there has not been a retroactive application of the law. 19 The

government contends that Immigrant Investor Law provides for a "two-stage

process" that requires two petitions to undergo entirely separate and independent adjudications. Government's Cross-Appeal at 30. As such, the government argues that the investors must demonstrate compliance with the statutory standards again. /d. at 31. The govemment's argument is unpersuasive and must be rejected. It

does not matter that there are two separate proceedings. The application of the precedent decisions in 1-829 . proceedings has a retroactive effect because it "attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past." INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 281,321 (2001), quoting Landsgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269 (1995).

First, the govemment minimizes the correlation between an 1-526 and an 1-

829 adjudication.

Indeed, while there are two steps, it is still essentially one

process. The adjudication of the 1-526 is to determine whether in the INS' opinion

the proposed investment comports with the statutory and regulatory requirements.

The 1-829 adjudication then determines whether or not the investor in fact in good

19 The government also contends that Montgomery Ward is only applicable where the individual challenging the new criteria was a party to adjudication issuing the new rule. This is plainly inconsistent with Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, supra, where the union successfully challenged the retroactive application of a new NLRB decision to which it was not a party.

30

faith, substantially complied with terms of the investment as approved by the INS

in the 1-526 petition. In other words, whether it complied with the statutory

requirements.

This is clearly contemplated by the statutory and regulatory framework that

narrowly focuses on whether the investor "maintained" the proper investment

throughout the alien's conditional residence. See INA § 216A(d)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. §

l186b(d)(1)(C);

8 C.F.R. § 216(1)(c)(iii).

Indeed, the relevant regulation

governing the adjudication of 1-829 petitions states, in pertinent part:

In adjudicating the [I-829] petition, the director shall determine: ...

(iii) The alien sustained the actions described in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(ii) of this section throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States. The alien will be considered to have

sustained the actions required for removal of conditions has in good faith, substantially met the capital investment of the statute and continuously maintained his or investment over the two years of conditional residence.

if he or she requirement her capital

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c)(1)(emphasis

added); see also INA §216A(d)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C.

§ l186b(d)(1)(C) ("Each petition,

shall contain facts and information

demonstrating...(C)

the alien sustained the actions described in subparagraphs

(A) and (B) throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States").

The use of language such as "sustained," "continuously maintained," and

"over two years of conditional residence" undermines the Defendant's argument.

This text affirms that the process of approving the qualifying investment is a

continuing one, which evaluates the investment first for appropriateness at the I-

31

526 stage and then evaluates under a far more narrow inquiry the Investor's efforts to "sustain" the approved plan at the 1-829 stage.
This Court's decision in Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081, 1084-86 (9th Cir. 1997) refutes the government's contention that the two-step nature of the process somehow eliminated the retroactive effect. In that case, the Bureau of Prisons redefined the term "crimes of violence." This modified definition had the effect of rendering several prisoners who had previously been approved as eligible for sentence reduction if they complied with a drug and alcohol program, suddenly ineligible upon the completion of their on-going 500 hour program. Even though compliance with the program was assessed again at the end, the Court held that newly applied definition could not be applied when making the second determination.
The government's conduct is retroactive here because it impairs rights that the investors possessed when they were admitted as conditional residents, increases their liability for their past conduct in making an investment, and imposes new burdens with respect to transactions already completed.
The investors are entitled to rely on the official action taken by the INS in reviewing and approving their initial petitions. At the 1-526 stage, the INS must conclude, based on a review of the exhaustive evidence required that the structure and nature of his business and investment plan, that the investor: (a) met the
32

definition of an active investment; (b) satisfied the capital requirement; (c) met the definition of a new commercial enterprise; and (d) would satisfy the job requirement. The application of the precedent decisions to the investors' 1-829 petitions essentially unsettles a number of these adjudicated facts, such as whether a new commercial enterprise was formed, the fair market value of his initial capital contribution, and the terms of his promissory note. Indeed, these are elements that fall outside of the scope of an 1-829 proceeding that looks at whether the previously approved investment was substantially "sustained."
3. The Montgomery Ward Analysis Determines The Proper Rule Of Law To Be Applied By Determining Whether A Retroactive Application Of Law Is Permissible - It Is Not A Waiver As The Government Asserts
The government's final challenge to the application of the Montgomery Ward factors is the odd assertion that the district court somehow imposed a "hardship" waiver into the Immigrant Investor Law. This argument should be disposed of quickly, as it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a retroactivity analysis.
First, the Montgomery Ward analysis does not waive compliance with the requirements of the Immigrant Investor Law. It simply is used to determine if the retroactively imposed criteria should be allowed to stand or whether it should be invalidated in favor of the prior standard in a given circumstance. If an investor is successful in establishing that a criteria is impermissibly retroactive, the petition is
33

simply given a fresh review, untainted by the impermissible criteria. In other words, the INS is still free to deny the investors' petitions if it determines that they did not in good faith substantially comply under the old criteria. 2°
Second, the government's misconception concerning the purpose of the Montgomery Ward analysis likely stems from its confusion of "burden" with "hardship." Defendant's Cross-Appeal at 33. Indeed, burden is a distinct legal concept. This Court's precedent demonstrates that a regulated party is impermissibly burdened where a showing is made that the party will be subjected
to a disadvantage or penalty simply because it did not have proper notice of the need to conform its conduct to the new standard by which it would be judged. The Court does not need to inquire into the regulated entity's ability to "shoulder" the
disadvantage or penalty, but simply whether the unforeseen consequence is now unavoidable. Montgomery Ward, 691 F.2d at 1322; Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 842 F.2d at 1145 (emphasis added). In other words, the Ninth Circuit looks to see if there is a true retroactive effect which creates some harm. 21
20 The INS' ability to deny the Investors' 1-829 petitions is of course somewhat limited if the Investors' succeed on their estoppel count. 2_ In Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, this Circuit determined that the application of new precedent shifting the parties' burden of proof with respect to a sympathy strike provision in a contract was a retroactive application of law and in and of itself a sufficient impermissible burden to the union to prevent the retroactive application of the new criteria. The court stated that "the retroactive shifting of the presumption not only ignores the parties' intent at the time the contract was made, it burdens the Union with an interpretation of a clause which is
34

Third, the govemment also misunderstands what the district court did. The district court could have (and perhaps should have) conducted the Montgomery

Ward analysis itself. Instead, in an effort directed at agency deference, it allowed

the INS to gather evidence and conduct the retroactivity analysis. In the end the INS' efforts are not directed at determining whether to grant a waiver, but rather to decide whether its precedent should be retroactively applied to these investors. If

it decides against retroactive application, it is still not compelled to grant the petition.

Reply to Arguments Raised In Opposition To The Investors' Arguments

III. THE GOVERNMENT

HAS NOT DISTINGUISHED

THE "FIRM,

PREDICTION"

RULE AND ONLY SPECULATES THAT THE 1-829

PETITIONS COULD BE DENIED ON OTHER GROUNDS

The government has made no real effort to distinguish or seriously challenge

the investors' argument that their claims are ripe because it can be firmly predicted that all of their 1-829 petitions will be denied on grounds based on the new criteria. Freedom to Travel v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1436 (9th Cir. 1994) (distinguishing

Reno v. Catholic Social Svcs, Inc. 509 U.S. 43 (1993) and expressly adopting

Justice O'Connor's "firm prediction" rule). Instead, it responds with pure abstract

exactly the opposite of the NLRB's interpretation at the time." Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers, 842 F.2d at 1145 (emphasis added). Thus, the union now had the burden of proving that it did not waive a sympathy strike. The Court stated that "this burden was significant, as the Union might have continued to bargain for the express exclusion of sympathy strikes, had it known it would be required to prove intent."

35

speculation: "Although the INS may deny the plaintiffs' 1-829 petitions based on the precedent decisions, the INS may alternatively base a denial on different

grounds." Government's Cross-Appeal at 38.

The INS offers no possible alternative grounds, nor does it foreclose that these alternative grounds are linked to the precedent decisions. In light of the procedural posture of this case, which is still almost exclusively on the pleadings, the government must offer more than baseless speculation. Indeed, all of the

investors allegations concerning the certainty of the INS denial of their 1-829

petitions based exclusively on the precedent decisions must be taken as true at this stage,z2

IV. THE INVESTORS' CLASS IS SUFFICIENTLY

COMMON AND

WOULD SERVE THE INTERESTS OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY

A. The Investors' Class Action Challenges The INS' Policy Of Retroactively Applying New Law To Their Cases, Not The Application of that Law

22 See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002)("Where, as here, the district court receives only written submissions, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to avoid the defendant's motion to dismiss"); see also Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002) ("For purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss for want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party... We need not, and do not, speculate as to the plausibility of [plaintiffs] allegations . . . A plaintiff needs only to plead general factual allegations of injury in order to survive a motion to dismiss, for 'we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim") (internal citations omitted).
36

The government's challenge of the investors' argument that class action status is appropriate reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the Plaintiffs'
arguments. 23 The government erroneously characterizes this suit as "[a challenge to] the substantive holdings of the precedent decisions 'as applied' to individual plaintiffs and the financing structures of their investment agreements." Government's Cross Appeal at 41. The investors and their families are not
challenging the holdings of the precedent decisions nor substantively challenging the denial on the merits of the petition. Rather, they challenge the INS' retroactive application of new criteria without notice and comment and in violation of Montgomery Ward, the constitution, and equitable principles. They assert that the INS is equitably estopped from applying the decisions and denying the
applications. The focus of the lawsuit, and its common elements, are thus on the government's generally applicable conduct. Such a suit is proper, even if there is minor factual variance in the ultimate application. 24
23 The government's allusion to the investors' class certification motion as untimely is somewhat misleading. First the motion for class certification was not denied based on timeliness, but rather directly linked with the district court's erroneous ruling on justiciability. The district court never even intimated that it was untimely or that this would be a factor in its decision. Indeed, the investors' filed a concurrent motion to enlarge the time for filing. [DE 21 ]. 24 The standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) do not require that every issue of fact and law be identical. See Hanlon v. Chrysler, 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998); Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Stewart v. Abraham, 275 F.3d 220, 227-28 (3d Cir. 2001) (plaintiffs
37

Numerous cases permit challenges, similar to the investors, where a class challenges an agency's unlawful or unconstitutional practice or policy that may in the end have minor factual variances in application. See, e.g., Waiters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1045 (9th Cir. 1998) (class certified where challenge is to general policy of providing notice to aliens, despite the fact that some of Defendant's offices provided more extensive notice); Guckenberger v. Boston University, 957 F. Supp. 306 (D. Mass. 1997) (Proposed class of learning-disabled students at university satisfied typicality and commonality requirements of class action rule in challenge to university's policies for accommodation of learning disabilities, though university alleged that class members had various learning disabilities; giving rise to different statutory rights and modes of accommodation); Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 845 F. Supp. 705 (D. Ariz. 1993) (Proposed class consisting of individuals who lived, worked or went to school in areas exposed to contaminated groundwater satisfied commonality element of class action rule, as liability of defendant under CERCLA and various state laws relative to disposal of hazardous material were legal issues common to entire class, and factual commonality existed in that each proposed class member was exposed to contaminated water; moreover, variables such as amount of water used, TCE concentration, water distribution patterns, or defendant's change in conduct over challenging the same unlawful conduct and sharing at least one question of fact or law satisfy commonality and typicality requirements).
38

the years did not defeat common nucleus of facts indicating defendant as source of contamination); Crisci v. Shalala, 169 F.R.D. 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (Commonality requirement for class certification was satisfied with respect to class of claimants whose cases had been or would be assigned to specified administrative law judge alleged to be predisposed to deny every capital Medicare Part B claim; common questions was whether such alleged bias deprived or would deprive both class members of their right to full and fair hearing was question of law common to class); Rodriguez v. Carlson, 166 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Wash. 1996) (question of whether employers complied with proper procedure concerning housing inspection under Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act was common question though there could be some variances among proposed class members regarding their particular housing conditions).
Even if the nature of the investors' class required the district court eventually to undertake an individualized factual review of a particular element of the investors' claims, class certification is still warranted. 25

25 Indeed, this Courts will uphold a properly certified class even if at a later stage

an individualized factual inquiry is necessary. See Waiters v. Reno, 145 F.3d at

1046 ("the need for subsequent individual proceedings, even complex ones, 'does

not supply a basis for concluding that [the named plaintiff] has not met the

commonality requirement'")(emphasis

added), quoting Forbush v. ,I. C. Penny Co.,

Inc., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Local Joint Executive Board of

CulinaryBartender

Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1163 (9th

Cir. 2001)(need for additional proof as to eligibility to receive damages is

39

B. Judicial Economy Is Served By Permitting A Class Action The government also asserts that the investors' class should not be certified because it would not deprive the investors of access to judicial review. This argument misses the point of a class action, which is intended to efficiently deal jointly with claims !nvolving multiple litigants seeking, identical relief, based on identical asserted wrongful conduct. Cf American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 550 (1974) ("A federal class action is no longer 'an invitation to joinder' but a truly representative suit designed to avoid, l"ather than encourage, unnecessary filing of repetitious papers and motions"). The government's argument encourages an inefficient waste of judicial resources. Indeed, the investors' class contains well over 250 investors. Under the government's view it is more prudent to hold 250 removal proceedings involving over 600 total family members. These proceedings, as described above, are inadequate to address the investors' constitutional, APA, and equitable claims, and thus would be futile and a waste of resources for both the government and the investors. Then, the government would prefer some 250 separate petitions for review to be filed in the courts of appeal on an inadequate record. This, of course, is a colossal waste, when all of these investors' legal challenges can be brought in one unified and simplified proceeding in the district court.

insufficient certified).

with respect to whether challenge to undei'lying

conduct should be

40

V. THE INVESTORS HAVE PROPERLY AVERRED AFFIRMATIVE MISCONDUCT The government's principal error in attempting to respond to the investors'
appeal is that it does not actually respond to the arguments raised by the investors. Instead, it attempts to recast the investors' arguments - which are well supported by controlling precedent in this Circuit--and present them as those made and rejected in R.L. Investment. The investors' arguments, however, as pointed out below, are quite different than those raised by the litigants in R.L. Investment, in particular because of the unique procedural posture at the time the precedent decisions were issued.
A. Affirmative Misconduct Does Not Require Proof Of An Improper Purpose
At the outset, the government argues that the investors' estoppel claim must be rejected because "there is no allegation that the INS applied or will apply the precedent decision to plaintiffs for an improper purpose or has acted willfully or recklessly to deprive plaintiffs of any rights." Government's Cross-Appeal at 44.
The government clearly misunderstands the concept of affirmative misconduct and is in reality merging this prong of the estoppel analysis with a separate consideration: serious injustice. The investors are not arguing that it is affirmative misconduct to issue precedent decisions or to apply them to the investors' petitions. Rather, these are the acts that the investors seek to estop
41

because of the government's affirmative misconduct. As fully discussed in the
investors' opening brief, it was affirmative misconduct for the government to: (a) approve the individual Plaintiffs' "non-approvable" immigrant petitions and admitt them to begin new lives in this country; (b) misinform the Plaintiffs that any
changes to the Immigrant Investor Law would be made in a prospective manner through notice and comment rule making; and (c) conceal from the Plaintiffs the Defendant's true intent to retroactively apply the new criteria to the Plaintiffs' previously approved investments.
This Court clearly illustrated the proper method for determining affirmative misconduct in Watkins v. U.S. Army, 875 F.2d 699, 707-08 (1988) (en banc):
Here, the Army affirmatively misrepresented in its official records throughout Watkins' fourteen-year military career that he was qualified for reenlistment. On the one occasion when the record was unclear, Watkins sought clarification and his classification was immediately changed from "unknown" to "eligible for reentry on active duty.".... Thus, the Army affirmatively acted in violation of its own regulations when it. repeatedly represented that Watkins was eligible to reenlist, as well as when it reenlisted him time after time.
Watkins, 875 F.2d at 707-08 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Army had no improper purpose for re-enlisting Watkins. What made the action affirmative misconduct is that it enlisted him in violation of agency rule.
Moreover, the government's reliance on R.L. Investment for the proposition that there is no injustice is simply misplaced. The distinctions between the investor in R.L. Investment and the investors and their families in this case are
42

legion. For example, in R.L. Investment, the investor had not yet been admitted to
the United States as a conditional resident, and he had only placed his money in
escrow pending approval of his first petition. Thus, he was not subject to any loss
26
of immigration status or the loss of his money.
In stark contrast, the investors and their families in this case are subject to
deportation and all of its inherent harms. 27 Furthermore, as each of the investors'
did receive approvals, they have all committed their funds to their investments.
They stand to lose the life they have built in this country, the right to work, travel,
and learn in this country. 28 They are subject to being barred from returning to this
country if ordered deported or if they accrue sufficient unlawful, presence
26 See R.L. Investment, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1027 ("Zou still has his $500,000 investment. That money was put in an escrow account to be released on condition that has visa petition was approved"); Id. at 1027 n.2 (noting that the investment agreement in the record allowed for the return). There is no similar facts in this case as all investor placed their money into their investments and executed duly enforceable and negotiable promissory notes. And, more importantly, almost all have completely changed their lives--uprooting themselves from their homes and lives in their countries, moving to the U.S., establishing lives and friends and homes here--based on the INS' actions and representations. 27 Sun II Yoo v. INS, 534 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir. 1976) (deportation viewed as a profound and unconscionable injury; Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 1199, 1205 (9th Cir. 1981); Maceren v. District Director, INS, 509 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1975); cf Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868, 871-72 (9th Cir. 1982) (revocation of parole after 15 months serious injustice). 28 The government simply has no factual basis for asserting that there is no harm in this case because the investors can seek the return of their money, since R.L. Investment characterized the arrangement in that case as a debt. Government's Cross Appeal at 32. The fact that R.L. Investment determined that the distinct investment in that case constituted a debt arrangement does not mean the investors' have a debt arrangement here where the investments are completely different.
43

challenging the INS' action, which will prevent them from retuming even as tourists to see the friends and families in their communities. In other words,

whereas the investors in R.L. Investment could simply get their money back and

reapply, these investors stand to lose the last five years of their lives and perhaps, much more. 29 The injustice in this case is manifest.

Bu

The Investors Estoppel Claim Is Based On Their Reliance Interest

In Their Own 1-526 Approvals, Not Reliance On Other Investors' 1-829 Petitions

This Court's precedent recognizes that the investors may justifiably rely on their own 1-526 approvals. 3° Watkins, 875 F.2d 699 (strong reliance interest in

eligibility determination to re-enlist even where the determination is inconsistent

with law); Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868, 872 (9th Cir. 1982) (prisoner had

right to believe that he was eligible for parole when he was repeatedly told he was

eligible, even though statute forbid parole); Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th

Cir. 1997) (prisoner issued eligibility determination indicating possibility for early

29 Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872 (serious injustice to revoke parole after 15 months of

successful reintegration); United States v. Wharton, 514 F.2d 406, 412 (9th Cir.

1975) ("Governmental conduct would work a serious injustice if this family were

divested of the home in which they have invested so much of themselves").

3o The support the government enlists in "unpublished opinion" jurisprudence has

little vitality where the individual asserting the reliance interest on the unpublished

opinion or decision is actually a party to the decisions. Indeed, unpublished

opinions and orders, while not binding to third parties, are certainly binding and

enforceable against the parties to the proceeding resulting in the order. Cf 9th Cir.

Rule 36-3(a)("unpublished

dispositions and orders of this Court are not binding

precedent, except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res

judicata, and collateral estoppel") (emphasis added).

44

release had reliance interest in that determination even if it was based on potentially erroneous reading of law); Gestuvo v. District Director, INS, 337 F. Supp. 1093, 1102 (C.D. Cal. 1971) ("Gestuvo had a right to believe that the Service intended its [approval of the labor certification] to be acted upon").
The government simply ignores the very clear precedent of this Court holding that individuals are entitled to rely on their own approvals, and instead mischaracterizes the investors as relying only on other approved 1-829 petitions and general counsel memoranda. This is simply an effort to cast this case as R.L. Investment when it is clearly factually distinct.
C. The Mistake Defense Is No___Attpplicable Where An Individual Relies On Her Own Official Approval As Opposed To Another Individual's Decision
The government's attempt to defend their misconduct by characterizing it as a mistake that they should be allowed to correct is without merit or legal support. See Government's Cross Appeal at 46, 54-55. The government simply ignores the clear law in this Court that holds that an individual will acquire a "settled expectation" when they receive their own official agency determination. Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 1997). Notably, the government makes no attempt to distinguish Cort - let alone mention it even in a footnote. Rather, the government's only response is its reliance on the apologia in R.L. Investment v.
45

INS, 86 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1024 (D. Haw. 2000), affd 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2001)

that administrative agencies make mistakes.

There is a very clear and important distinction between this Court's rejection

of the "agency mistake defense" in Cort, which controls in this case, and its tacit

approval of it in R.L. Investment. The first important distinction concerns who is

attempting to rely on the approval or the decision that the agency says is mistaken:

the actual individual who received the decision or a third party.

In Cort, the Ninth Circuit held in quite strong terms that prisoners had a settled expectation in their own eligibility determination for a program that might

lead to early release. In Cort, the Court held that once an eligibility determination

had been made for an individual to participate in a program, that individual had a

"settled expectation" in continued eligibility notwithstanding

an intervening

program revision that would have made the person ineligible. Indeed, the Ninth

Circuit used very strong language rejecting the "mistake" defense when asserted

against an individual who himself had received an official decision. In rejecting

the Agency's "mistake" defense, the court characterized the argument as

"confusing," "unique," and "novel." Cort, 113 F.3d at 1085-86.

The situation in R.L. Investment, however, is very different. In that case, the

court acknowledged the relevance of the mistake defense where an individual was

seeking to rely on the eligibility decision of other individuals, as opposed to his

46

own decision. There, the investor was petitioning for an initial eligibility determination (I-526) of immigrant investor status. Indeed, in contrast to Cort and this litigation, the investor in R.L. Investment was not protesting a decision to reverse his personal previously granted eligibility determination. The R.L. investor had never himself received any form of approval. Thus, the court did not find a sufficient interest to preclude the application of the new standard to his new petition. R.L. Investment, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1024.
Thus, in looking at both Cort and R.L. Investment, it becomes clear that this Court has drawn a careful and important line between who is asserting the reliance interest. Clearly, under Cort, if an individual has his own formal approval, then there is a settled expectation. However, if--as in R.L. Investment--the individual asserts only the approvals of four other investors, then the "mistake" defense may have some applicability.
As such, R.L. Investments' agency apologia has no applicability to the instant case. Here, the investors are asserting a settled expectation based first and foremost upon their own individually and previously approved investment plans (I526).. The government's overwhelming reliance on R.L. Investment fails to account for the clear difference between the reliance interest in R.L. Investment and the instant case. The investor in R.L. Investment was making an 1-526 application for INS initial approval of his investment program. He further was attempting to
47

rely on four other approved 1-526 petitions. R.L. Investment, 86 F. Supp. 2d at

1026. In other words, the investor in R.L. Investment had never himself received

an approval from the INS. In this case, the investors are in a very different posture than the investor in

R.L. Investment. Each of the Plaintiffs in this case was provided his own official

determinations that his investment was valid under the Immigrant Investor Law.

Just like in Cort, the Plaintiffs have a "settled expectation" in their own official

determinations---even

if the initial reasoning is later rejected. Thus, this is not a

case of non-mutual collateral estoppel as the Defendant intimates. The Plaintiffs

are seeking primarily to rely on their own approvals, which are simply buttressed

by other overt manifestations of the Defendant including its consistent practice of

adjudications. Furthermore, the Defendant also notably fails to contradict the fact that even

the Izumii precedent decision indicates that an individual's own approved 1-526

petition gives rise to a justifiable expectation. See Matter oflzumii, Int. Dec. No.

3360 at 36, 22 I. & N. Dec. 201, __ (BIA 1998) (recognizing that a reliance

interest arises from the adjudication of petitioner's application).

VI. THE INVESTORS' APA NOTICE AND COMMENT CHALLENGE

IS NOT CONTROLLED

BY R.L. INVESTMENT

BECAUSE IT

ARISES IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OF A DISTINCT SET OF

REGULATIONS

AND INTERESTS FROM THOSE THAT WERE AT

ISSUE IN THAT CASE

48

A. The Investors' APA Claims Are Not Controlled Investment

By R.L.

The government asserts that all of the investors' APA notice and comment

claims are foreclosed by R.L. Investment. Such a broad and sweeping conclusion is simple hyperbole. Indeed, R.L. Investment is limited by its facts and the very

different procedural posture its litigants found themselves in terms of seeking permanent residency. It must be remembered that the investors and their families in this case have all received the official imprimatur of the government on their

investment and therefore have very different expectations with respect to the laws that are applied in their case.
First, in contrast to R.L. Investment, the investors in this case do not assert

that INS contravened a rule of law represented only by other investors' unpublished opinions and general counsel memoranda. Here, the investors principally rely on the rule of law that was applied in their own case. It is well settled in this circuit that an individual has strong reliance interest in their own official determinations. 3j Thus, the investors' challenge in this case fits squarely

3_ See United States v. Utah Construction and Mining, 384 U.S. 394, 421-22 (1966); see also Safir v. Gibson, 432 F.2d 137, 142-43 (2d Cir. 1970) (Friendly, J.) (applying principles of res judicata to both issues of fact and law decided by one agency in a subsequent administrative proceedings before another agency); Cort v. Crabtree, 113 F.3d 1081; Watla'ns, 875 F.2d 699; Johnson, 682 F.2d at 872. Indeed, the Associate Commissioner in lzumii has already indicated that an
49

within this line of cases represented by: Pfaff 88 F.3d at 748; Ford Motor Co, 673 F.2d at 1009-10; Patel, 638 F.2d at 1203-05; Ruangswang, 591 F.2d at 44; Yesler,

37 F.3d 442,449 (9th Cir. 1994). These cases stand for the proposition, applicable

here, that where an individual conforms his conduct to a given regulation or

statute, an agency may not subsequently in an adjudication, without prior notice,

unsettle a legitimate expectation that the individuals have based on their good faith

attempt to comply with the legislative rule. 32

Second, R.L. Investment did not foreclose the necessity of notice and

comment where an agency contravenes a longstanding policy or practice. See R.L.

Investment, 86 F. Supp. 2d at 1024 ("A rule that effects a change in existing law or

is iegislative")(emphasis

added)(citation omitted). Rather, based on the

limited facts in that case, the Court was unable to discern a policy. Id. ("The four

RLILP investor petitions are insufficient evidence of an INS' "policy"). Here,

however, the investors' complaint alleges that a policy was formed over seven

years in thousands of approvals. [E.R. at 61, §§96(h), 97]. Indeed, the investor

class itself involves nearly 250 of those approvals. Thus, if allowed to fully

develop their claims, the investors may demonstrate that the precedent decisions

approved 1-526 petition gives rise to "reasonable" and "justifiable" reliance. Izumii, I. & N. Dec. at 197. 32 This Court was especially troubled in Pfaff that HUD, like the INS here, had made "inconsistent and misleading representations to those regulated.., and, in so doing, has led them down the garden path." Id. at 747.
50

contravened a longstanding policy or practice necessitating notice and comment. Alaska Professional Hunters Ass 'n v. FAA, 177 F.3d 1030 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Shell Offsh'ore, Inc. v. Babbitt, 238 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2001); Pfaff, 88 F.3d at 748.
B. The Government Relies Exclusively On An Inapplicable Statute To Refute The Investors' Claim That The Retroactive Application of The Precedent Decisions Amended The Narrow Scope Of The 1-829 Proceedings
The investors argued that the application of the precedent decisions to the Investors' 1-829 petitions effectively amended the rules and statute because it significantly broadened the narrow scope of review that is to be undertaken at the 1-829 stage. Indeed, the 1-829 adjudication is not designed to second guess the first adjudication. It is intended simply to narrowly determine if the investor "in good faith, substantially" "maintained" and "sustained" the qualifying investment throughout the alien's conditional residence. INA §216A(d)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 216(c)(1)(iii). If the facts in the petition are deemed to be "true," the INS is supposed to remove the conditions. INA § 216A(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(3)(B).
In its attempt to refute this argument, the government again attempts to assert that the 1-526 petition and 1-829 proceedings are two separate proceedings allowing a full reassessment at each juncture. In support of its proposition that the 1-829 proceeding is just as broad as the 1-526 proceeding, the government points this Court to a so-called "catchall termination" provision. INA § 216A(b)(1)(C), 8
51

U.S.C. § l186b(b)(1)(C).

This reference is disingenuous and belies the

government's argument. The provision that the government cites is not applicable to the adjudication

of the investors' 1-829 petitions. Instead, the section pertains only to the rescission

of the 1-526 during a statutory two-year period that has passed for the investors in

this case. Congress granted this authority to the INS during the first two years

(only) to reexamine the investment for any basis under the act in rescission

proceedings. This express authority is notably not part of the 1-829 proceedings.

Compare INA § 216A(b)(1)(A)-(C),

8 U.S.C. § l186b(b)(1)(A)-(C),

with INA

216A(d)(1)(A)-(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1)(A)-(C); 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c). None of the investors have been issued a notice under this broader provision, and it is well

passed the period where full reconsideration is allowed by law. Thus, the

government's efforts to apply INA 216A(b)(1)(C) to 1-829 petitions is misplaced.

Congress has foreclosed this broader power in the adjudication of 1-829 petitions. Indeed, the very fact that Congress created a separate temporally limited

provision to rescind improvidently granted 1-526 petition separate and apart from

the 1-829 proceedings simply reinforces the investors' argument that the INS has

improperly amended the regulations and statute by expanding the inquiry to be undertaken during an 1-829 proceeding. The INS has clearly amended its rules to

circumvent the two-year limit on rescinding 1-526 approvals and has

52

fundamentally broadened the scope of the 1-829 proceedings to permit an ultra

vires re-examination of the issues that are supposed to be settled in the 1-526

adjudication. Such an amendment--at a minimum---compels notice and comment

rulemaking.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE,

the PlaintiffsiAppellants/Cross-Appellees

respectfully

request that this Honorable Court dismiss the government's appeal and reverse in

part the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to reinstate all

named individual Plaintiffs and to permit them to seek class wide injunctive and

declaratory relief on their APA, retroactivity, constitutional, and estoppel claims. '

DATE: August,,_',

2002

Respectfull S

ni_

j..-)_

/ // ///

j-

/./, //C--"

Ira J. Ku_

3s ,q,_(,,$tate Bar No.: 71563)

KurzbancKu_zl: a0;;/Weinger & Tetzeli PA

2650 SW 27 fhAvenue,_" 2 nd floor

Miami, FL 33133

Tel: 305.444.0060; Fax. 305.444.3503

Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. (State Bar No.: 80778) Van Der Hout, & Brigagliano 180 Sutter Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel. (415) 981-3000; Fax. (415) 981-3003

53

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO FED. R. APP. 32(A)(7)(C) AND CIRCUIT RULE 32-1 FOR CASE NUMBER 00-15627

I certify that: (check appropriate option(s)) X 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(C) attached opening/answering/reply/cross-appeal

and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the brief is

X Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 13,717 words (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed 14, 000 words; reply briefs must not exceed 7, 000 words),
or is __ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains __ words or __ lines of text (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed 14, 000 words or 1300 lines of text; reply briefs must not exceed 7,000 words or 650 lines of text).

2. The attached brief is not subject to the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because
__ This brief complies with Fed. R. App. P. 32 (a)(l)-(7) and is a principal brief of no more than 30 pages or a reply brief of no more than 15 pages;
This brief complies with a page or size volume limitation establisheff by separate court order dated __ and is
__ Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains __ words,

or is __ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters __ pages or __ words or lines of text.

per inch and contains

3. Briefs in Capital Cases. This brief is being filed in a capital case pursuant to the type-volume
limitations set forth at Circuit Rule 32-4 and is
__ Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains words (opening, answering and the second and third briefs
filed in cross-appeals must not exceed 21,000 words; reply briefs must not exceed 9,800 words),

54

or is __ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains __ words or __ lines of text (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed 75 pages or 1950 lines of text; reply briefs must not exceed 35 pages or 910 lines of text).
4. Amicus Briefs. __ Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(d) and 9th Cir. R. 32-1,.the attached amicus brief is proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 7000 words or less,
or is

__ Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains not more than either 7000 words or 650 lines of text,

or is

/?

.

Not subject to the type-volun_ lim_ ations b/eeff_e it is an a_

briefof

n-_ more than 15 pages and co_Tiplies//o'itl_ Fe_R//App. P._a)(1)(5).

"

//

///

_

August______, 2002
Date

{ .// /// ;/'/,///
Ira K-"ur'z n,
K_/ban,,l_[urzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A.
2_50 S.W. 27 th Avenue, 2 "d Floor

Miami, Florida 33133

Tel. (305) 444-0060

Fax. (305) 444-3503

55

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Ira J. Kurzban, the undersigned, say:
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action or proceedings; my business address is: KURZBAN, KURZBAN, WEINGER & TETZELI, P.A., 2650 SW 27 th Avenue, 2 nd Floor, Miami, Florida 33133.

On August _"_, 2002 1 served the within via United States Express Mail:

PLAINTIFFSAPPELLANTSCROSS

APPELLEES'

APPEAL (REPLY) BRIEF

THIRD CROSS

on the Office of Immigration Litigation by depositing two true copies, thereof, enclosed in a sealed'envelope with postage fully pre-paid, in a mailbox regularly maintained by the Government of the United States to each person listed below addressed as follows:

Heather Phillips, Esq. Office of Immigration Litigation Department of Justice/Civil Division P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

Executed on August _° L, 2002, at Miami, Florida. I declare under penalty of

perjury that the foregoing

is true and correc/_
/(/,/ /

Ira J. Kur,_ba/_;,i

Decl_al_t _"

56

 
 Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 1 of 290
(AJWx),CONSOLDS,REOPENED,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99−cv−10518−GHK−AJW

Kyung Sook Ahn, et al v. USA, et al Assigned to: Judge George H. King Referred to: Discovery Andrew J. Wistrich Demand: $0 Case in other court: 9th CCA, 10−56477 Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement Plaintiff Kyung Sook Ahn
Plaintiff Jae Bum Ahn

Date Filed: 10/12/1999 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Ira J Kurzban Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli &Pratt PA 2650 SW 27th Avenue Suite 200 Miami, FL 33133 305−444−0060 Fax: 305−444−3503 Email: ira@kkwtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout Van Der Hout &Brigagliano and Nightingale 180 Sutter Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94123 515−981−3000 Email: mv@vblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy Bernard P Wolfsdorf Law Offices 17383 Sunset Blvd Suite 120 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 310−573−4242 TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 634 South Spring Street Suite 714 Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−622−7450 Fax: 213−622−7233 Email: Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 2 of 290

Plaintiff Soo Yeon Ahn
Plaintiff Tae Eun Ahn
Plaintiff Igor S Babiev TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 3 of 290

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lev I Babiev TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff No Woong Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Syun Hee Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eun Kyu Bak

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 4 of 290

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyun Jung Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Ho Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Sun Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 5 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Young Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jun Bum Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Albrecht Buhler

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 6 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gillian Webb Buhler

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katriona Gillian Katriona Gillian Kirkpatrick Buhler TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Jo Cha

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 7 of 290

Plaintiff Nak Soon Cha
Plaintiff Sun Yi Cha
Plaintiff Yoon Yi Cha
Plaintiff Chee Cheung Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 8 of 290

Plaintiff Pik Chiu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Man Kit Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Man Zse Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 9 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Man Chi Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Yu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin−Fong Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 10 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen−Li Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Che−Pei Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ching−Farn Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 11 of 290

Plaintiff Hsueh−Mei Chang
Plaintiff Chan−Chia Chang
Plaintiff Chan−Haw Chang

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 12 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chan−Zue Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chan−Wei Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Chen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 13 of 290

Ching−Wen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Cheng Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Yueh Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 14 of 290

Yen−Hui Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Fu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sheng−Fu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Hoon Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 15 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hye Yeon Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jae Young Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 16 of 290

Jae Woo Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jae Bum Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ruey Rong Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 17 of 290

Plaintiff Yu−Fang Hsu
Plaintiff Wei−Ting Chang
Plaintiff Tsung−Wei Chang
Plaintiff Ta−Peng Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 18 of 290

Plaintiff Hsu−Yi Chang
Plaintiff Chia−How Chang
Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 19 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner David Gardner Law Offices 6300 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, CA 90048 323−653−4514 Fax: 323−651−5938 Email: david@americanimmigrationlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tsung−Ming Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chiao−Ying Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 20 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen−Pin Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiang−Ping Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tun−Wei Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 21 of 290

Plaintiff Yu−Hui Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yi−Ming Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shu−Hua Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yao−Wen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 22 of 290

Plaintiff Yao−Jen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yong Sik Chang
Plaintiff Mi Ok Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 23 of 290

Plaintiff Min Ah Chang
Plaintiff Min Il Chang
Plaintiff Yu−Tai Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 24 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Chieh Hsueh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiao−Han Hsueh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chi−Jen Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 25 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chao Fang Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chien Chuan Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mu Hua Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 26 of 290

Plaintiff Guo−Chueng Chen
Plaintiff Yueh−Ying Chen
Plaintiff Chia−Ling Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 27 of 290

Plaintiff Hsiang−Fu Chen
Plaintiff Chih Hui Chen
Plaintiff Yu−Tai Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 28 of 290

Plaintiff Yu−Hung Chen
Plaintiff Hui−Hsiung Chen
Plaintiff Chiung−Chu Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 29 of 290

Plaintiff Po−Lin Chen
Plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chen
Plaintiff Hsin−I Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 30 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hung−Liang Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ling−Ching Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Yu Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 31 of 290

Plaintiff Kuen−Yan Chen
Plaintiff Hsiu−Hua Chen
Plaintiff Jun−Chiu Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 32 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wu−Cheng Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Liang−Chung Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Siao−Shee Chao

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 33 of 290

Plaintiff I−Fan Chen
Plaintiff Pao−Chu Chen
Plaintiff Wei Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 34 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hisn−Yun Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shih Hwa Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yun−Ping Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 35 of 290

Li−Hua Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Shin Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Ju Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shu−Hua Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 36 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chiu−Liang Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yi−Fan Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff I−Chieh Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 37 of 290

Plaintiff Po−Cheng Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yueh−Mei Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yuan−Kai Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 38 of 290

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Yuan Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung Hsiung Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Yin Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 39 of 290

Cheng−Tai Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Feng I Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ching−Chi Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hsueh−Hui Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 40 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen−Chih Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen−Ling Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Seok Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 41 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Young Ja Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Woo Seok Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Sub Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 42 of 290

Plaintiff Kwang Ae Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Han Wool Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Daseolhan Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Heung Kohl Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 43 of 290

Plaintiff Bong Ok Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jae Hyuck Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jeong Hwan Choi

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 44 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sook Ja Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Min Koo Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Song Hak Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 45 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Ran Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Suk Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Ah Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Soo Bong Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 46 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Hee Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyung Jin Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Woo Hyun Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 47 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hee Jin Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Kil Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bog−Hi Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 48 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Bum Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung−Hi Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Wen Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 49 of 290

Pi−Yun Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung−Chun Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Wei Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 50 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Ling Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jin−Chen Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shu−Fang Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 51 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wei−Chun Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu−Shan Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wei−Jen Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 52 of 290

Plaintiff Yu−Lin Chou
Plaintiff Wei Yen
Plaintiff Mao−Chuan Chou
Plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 53 of 290

Plaintiff Ta−Ching Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Jung Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tzu−Hsin Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 54 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei−ju Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu−Te Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mei−Lin Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 55 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hui−Tsung Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hui−Yu Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kai−Hung Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin Dong Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 56 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hee Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Won Sik Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Sik Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 57 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bernardo V Cruz TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Natividad M Cruz TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eugene Espinueva C TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 58 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fe Helengrace R Espinueva

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edward Rae R Espinueva

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Evelyn R Espinueva TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 59 of 290

Elissa Nell R Espinueva TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Tim Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chiu Ling Fung Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi Leung Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 60 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Po Man Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hong−Mei Gong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fuyu Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 61 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bin Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yuan Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 62 of 290

Plaintiff Tatyana Gorilovskaia TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Lev Gorilovskiy TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Anna Gorilovskaia TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mi Jin Gu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 63 of 290

Plaintiff Ja Kyung Gu
Plaintiff Bon Young Gu
Plaintiff Bon Min Gu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 64 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Woo Young Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chae Ok Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Young Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 65 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Hack Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung Won Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Suck Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kyung Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 66 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Sook Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Myong Soo Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jee Min Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 67 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Koo Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung He Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Ki Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 68 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Ming Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Mei Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chiao−Yun Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 69 of 290

Mu−Jou Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Te Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Shu Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Chieh Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 70 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Ju Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Chin Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chou−Yi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 71 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hoa−Chao Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi−Jun Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Jun Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 72 of 290

Plaintiff Hsi−Chieh Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hsien−Ming Hsieh
Plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh
Plaintiff

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 73 of 290

Pei−Chen Hsieh

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pei−Shan Hsieh

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiu Chin Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 74 of 290

Plaintiff Jui−Hsin Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hui Jou Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tsung−Yi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Pang−Chi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 75 of 290

Plaintiff Hui Ling Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chen Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 76 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shih Chieh Hsu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shu Chen Hsu Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chi−Fang Hsu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 77 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bi Chen Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Chieh Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ta−Lun Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ta−You Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 78 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ta−Wei Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Chang Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lai−Hao Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 79 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fu−Nan Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fu−Kai Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Ok Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 80 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yool Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kyung Hwa Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kyu Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 81 of 290

Ya Jin Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Hyeok Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi−Yen Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Chen Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 82 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Ju Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Hung Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Sung Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 83 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Nim Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoo Jin Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Suk Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 84 of 290

Plaintiff Yu Wen Juan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chuan−Ching Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ching−Jen Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu−Ling Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 85 of 290

Plaintiff Yu−Chia Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chang−Sik Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hee Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 86 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yo Han Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ik Hee Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Tae Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 87 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shin Ho Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Na Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeoung Soo Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yang Sook Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 88 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien Kuei Kao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu Lien Liang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
An Kuo Kao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 89 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chae Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwa Shin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soo Jeong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 90 of 290

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Geon Tae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min Seong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chan Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 91 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hak Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ki Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jun Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 92 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Hack Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ok Hyeun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Nam Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 93 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Kwan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Choong Nam Kim

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Myung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 94 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Sook Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 95 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Seok Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hae Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Jung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 96 of 290

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Kyung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Han Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Ja Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 97 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Jeong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Chan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwan Kyum Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 98 of 290

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwee Sik Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
June Gil Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
June Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 99 of 290

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jong Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Mo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 100 of 290

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeon Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joong Heon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keun Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 101 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Kyung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seong Ik Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 102 of 290

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwang Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Duk Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Hoon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 103 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwon Gi Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 104 of 290

Plaintiff
Young Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Hwan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 105 of 290

Plaintiff Kyung Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yeon Joo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hae Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 106 of 290

Plaintiff Won Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Joong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Myong Soon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 107 of 290

Plaintiff Hyung Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wan Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Sook Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 108 of 290

Plaintiff Hyun Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sae Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 109 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
See Ouk Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 110 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sook Kim Baek TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sae Hoon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jee Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 111 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soon Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Heung Joo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Kyu Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 112 of 290

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ssang Gi Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 113 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Da Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
A Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dae Woong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 114 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae−Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Seung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 115 of 290

Plaintiff Ji Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mee Sun Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sung Hyun Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 116 of 290

Sung Hoon Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Lin Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih−Chieh Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih−Hsiang Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 117 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sung Duck Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hye Ra Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyun Jung Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 118 of 290

Plaintiff Min Suk Kong
Plaintiff Chin−Hsin Kuo
Plaintiff Mei−Miao Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 119 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien−Ting Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Hui Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Yang Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 120 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yo−tzu Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu Wei Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jae Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 121 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You Young Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Jeong Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyeong Jin Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 122 of 290

Song Joo Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoeun Hwa Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hyeng Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Sung Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 123 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Tien Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
I−Chun Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yeh−Chien Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 124 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu Kuei Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen Chih Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chen Ju Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 125 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ying−Ming Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Hsiu Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun Wei Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 126 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen Ju Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sai Yue Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wai Yee Lau Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 127 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hiu Yan Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
King Yin Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
King Yip Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 128 of 290

Chil Ok Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Je Ho Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Gyu Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 129 of 290

Plaintiff Sang Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sang Heui Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Dae Yeon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 130 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Ja Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Won Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Won Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 131 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun−Kyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wook Hyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 132 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ae Kyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Min Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Il Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 133 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Ja Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Suk Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 134 of 290

Plaintiff Kyu Baik Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ai Ran Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jin Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 135 of 290

Plaintiff Hee Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Woo Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Jung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 136 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Zin−Pha Li TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yien Sough Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 137 of 290

Jee Hoon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Sik Lee

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jong Hee Lee

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 138 of 290

Plaintiff Eung Jun Lee
Plaintiff Sang Eun Lee
Plaintiff Eung Sang Lee

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 139 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Ki Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sun Hee Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suh Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 140 of 290

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sook Hyun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Han Na Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Joon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 141 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Hyun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Cheon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Duk Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 142 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joon Woo Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Eun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 143 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kun Woo Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Ho Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Sook Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 144 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Jai Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Min Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Kyu Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 145 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeen Ran Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se Jong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se Hyup Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 146 of 290

Plaintiff Yun Chang Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Koon Cheung Tom Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 147 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwai Loi Leung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Yin Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wing Yin Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Koon Tai Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 148 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Siu Fong Leung Wong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Ting Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hiu Wai Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 149 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Hsiung Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shu−Chen Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shun−Jen Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 150 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Lin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pen−Yu Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiu Fang Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 151 of 290

Yi Chan Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Chin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Hsien Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−li Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 152 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsuan−Ping Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
I−Ping Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hung−Hsiang Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 153 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pin−Pin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen−Chin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching Ming Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 154 of 290

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hou Chou Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen Yuan Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia Kai Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 155 of 290

Plaintiff Shu−Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wei Ting Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wei Hsuen Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yi Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 156 of 290

Plaintiff Chung Nan Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ho−Whei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Li Lin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 157 of 290

Plaintiff Chuang−Ju Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chuang−Yeh Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hsien−Lin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 158 of 290

Plaintiff Hui−Mei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Min−Cheng Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia−Yu Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 159 of 290

Plaintiff Hwa−Hsiung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chin−Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Szu−Yin Lin

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 160 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ko−Ting Lin

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li Li Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tsung Ming Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 161 of 290

Plaintiff You−Sheng Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wen Hui Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 162 of 290

Hung−Wei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Hung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ming Ling Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Nan Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 163 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Ching Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Hung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen Yin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 164 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien−Yu Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Chien Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alice Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 165 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shang−Fu Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei Chih Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Hao Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 166 of 290

Plaintiff Te−Hung Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chiang Ling Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Ling Liu Lo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff I−Wen Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 167 of 290

Plaintiff Tzu−Hao Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yen−Po Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shiu−Lan Ma TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 168 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi−Hua Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hao−Hua Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 169 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young−Sook Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seon−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 170 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joon Sik Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mi Ja Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Suk Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 171 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Sun Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Suk Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi Seung Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 172 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Hee Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Hyun Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hye Rim Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 173 of 290

Min Hyun Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chii−Ching Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Hua Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Te−Han Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 174 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Te−Jen Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Keun Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei Chun Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 175 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Yang Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Don Suk Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Sok Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 176 of 290

Plaintiff Jung Woo Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jae Kwan Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ae Ryun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jang Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 177 of 290

Plaintiff Jee Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff In Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Seon Og Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 178 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yun Kyung Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Rye Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hong Ryong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 179 of 290

Plaintiff Sun Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shin Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tae Heup Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 180 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwa Ja Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung June Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Hye Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Woo Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 181 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hye Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Sung Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Wook Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 182 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Raulie D Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Concepcion V Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Adrian V Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 183 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jose Romero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marie Rose Romero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyuk Hwan Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 184 of 290

Ja Hye Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Chan Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soo Yung Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Jung Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 185 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Hong Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Beom Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moung Sook Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 186 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Shin Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Hwan Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Hwa Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 187 of 290

Plaintiff Cheng−Hsiung She
Plaintiff Hui Wen She
Plaintiff Tzu Ming She

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 188 of 290

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Heng−Shiang Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yao−Meng Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Li Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 189 of 290

Plaintiff Myung Seong Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chung Hwa Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hoon Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jie Hye Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 190 of 290

Plaintiff Sug Soo Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Bo Soo Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Soon Yong Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 191 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sun Hee Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Young Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Yeol Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 192 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Ye Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Min Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Soo Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Sook Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 193 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Hoon Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Won Ju Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Lim Shon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 194 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 195 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Yong Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Youn Woo Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Jung Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 196 of 290

Jae Hyung Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Oleg Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Galsira Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maxim Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 197 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kseniva Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Stanley S T Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ivy H K Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 198 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Vivian Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Ju Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Joon Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 199 of 290

Plaintiff Min Jeong Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jee Min Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ching−Fu Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu Hua Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 200 of 290

Plaintiff Po Hsieh Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yin Yuan Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chun−Chen Su

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 201 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsueh−Lan Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Po−Lin Su

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Po−Wei Su

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 202 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You Ho Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mi Ran Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Kwan Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min Sue Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 203 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yueh−Ching Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ru−Ying Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You−Chen Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 204 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wan−Hsuan Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwei−You Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jorge Alberto Tellez Chaves TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 205 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marcela Tellez Gomez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Laura Tellez Gomez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 206 of 290

Chien−Hwa Tong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Andres D Toro−Betancur TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Liliana Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Susana Toro−Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 207 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paulina Toro−Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dario Toro−Quintero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 208 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keng−Mu Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeu−Jiunn Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fan Zee Eric Tsang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 209 of 290

Plaintiff Hsiu−Linag Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wen−Hsi Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Huan−Min Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tu Hsiu Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 210 of 290

Plaintiff Chien Mei Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia Hsiang Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Fang Chi Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 211 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fang Ching Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Po−En Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 212 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yuk Lan Wang Wong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ming Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dawei Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 213 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Chien Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Yu Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ping−Lun Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 214 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Chi Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chao−Shih Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Lin Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 215 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Meng−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen−Jung Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Cheng Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 216 of 290

Cheng−Han Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsian−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Yueh Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 217 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kun Kuang Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei−Chen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Chen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 218 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Fen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yang Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Chun Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 219 of 290

Plaintiff Chun−Chieh Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jen−Tzong Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Fen−Lan Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu−Ling Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 220 of 290

Plaintiff Man−Chiou Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Pen−Po Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jen−Hsing Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 221 of 290

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsin−Ti Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Rong Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih Yu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 222 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tsai Chu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia Chu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Hung Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ki Sun Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 223 of 290

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sook Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chong Hwa Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yon Jung Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 224 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Khun Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Young Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Han Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 225 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Won Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Jung Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Yang Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 226 of 290

Young Ae Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hwan Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Sik Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 227 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chan−Kyung Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In−Sub Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min−Sub Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 228 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Soo Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Deog Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Byung Hee Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 229 of 290

Plaintiff Ji En Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kwang Hee Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hak−Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 230 of 290

Hak−Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Rok Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Jan Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Sang Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 231 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Yeon Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Bok Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cin Ok Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 232 of 290

Plaintiff Chul Hwoan Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hwoan Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sheng−Chun Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 233 of 290

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li Chin Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai Li Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih Yi Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 234 of 290

Chao Yuan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ai Guo Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Xiaoying Yuan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Shin Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 235 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hae Sil Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Wool Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Sang Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 236 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Almark Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 237 of 290

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Denim Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 238 of 290

Plaintiff
Alabama Millry Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama River Run Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 239 of 290

Plaintiff CWHotel Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff Delaware Milford Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff Georgia Almark Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 240 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 241 of 290

Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Jocelyn Wright US Department of Justice Civil Division P O Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044−0878 202−616−4900 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Heather Phillips US Department of Justice Civil Division 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 8041N Washington, DC 20004 202−616−9343 TERMINATED: 02/14/2011

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 242 of 290

Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership a Mississippi Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 243 of 290

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 244 of 290

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Recap Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Recap Fund V Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
RPC Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 245 of 290

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 246 of 290

Plaintiff
WTC Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States of America

represented by Anthony DiCastro US Department of Justice Civil Div, Office of Immigration Lit 1331 Penn Ave PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony P Nicastro US Department of Justice 1331 Penn Ave

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 247 of 290
PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 Fax: 202−616−4975 Email: anthony.nicastro@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David V Bernal US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P O Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4900 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ernesto Molina US Department of Justice Civil Div, Office of Immigration Lit 1331 Penn Ave PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gjon Juncaj US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−307−8514 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Helvey US Department of Justice CIVIL − OIL − DCS 450 Fifth Street NW PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4667 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: kimberly.e.helvey@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leon W Weidman AUSA − Office of US Attorney Chief − Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2408 Fax: 213 894 7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
M Jocelyn Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell William Chittenden

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 248 of 290

AUSA − Office of US Attorney Civil Division Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2444 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Laurence Goldman US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation 450 Fifth Street NW Room 6224 Washington, DC 20001 202−616−9131 TERMINATED: 01/05/2011

Geoffrey Forney United States Department of Justice OIL − District Court Section 450 5th Street, NW Room 6104 Washington, DC 20001 202−532−4329 Email: geoff.forney@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn M Girdharry US Department of Justice Civil Division − Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4807 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Phillips (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2011

Shirley Wang Hoo Shirley Wang Hoo Law Offices P O Box 3874 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266−1874 310−663−3010 TERMINATED: 08/13/2008

Plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 249 of 290
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/18/1999 10/26/1999
10/26/1999 12/13/1999 12/13/1999 12/27/1999 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 02/07/2000
03/08/2000

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) Issued referred to Discovery Andrew J. Wistrich (pc) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
2 NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by plaintiff's (pc) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
3 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re CASE MANAGEMENT (SEE DOCUMENT) (yc) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
4 RETURN RECEIPT of Certified Mail showing service of sms/cmp, ntcs delivery to Janet Reno, US Atty, USA, rcvd by rubber stamp Elwood C Robinson of Dept of Justice on 10/19/99 (lk) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
5 Non−Governmental Party's Corporate Disclosure. (lk) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
6 ANSWER filed by defendant USA to complaint [1−1] (lk) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
7 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER by Judge George H. King that the document ans is to be fld &processed. (bp) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
8 CERTIFICATION AS TO INTERESTED PTYS Purs to L/R 4.6 by defendant USA (jp) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
9 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed. Estimated length of trial; plf estimate 10−15 days; dft estimates 2−3 days (rrey) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
10 JOINT NOTICE OF MSC (rrey) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
11 MINUTES: Mandatory status conf held. Crt directs pla to fi their 1st A/C by 3/8/00. Dft shall ans the 1st A/C by 3/22/00 by Judge George H. King CR: none (lk) Modified on 03/08/2000 (Entered: 02/09/2000)
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for injuctive and declaratory relief &for damages [1−1] by plaintiffs terminating Yeo Sang Yun, Yeo Wool Yun, Hae Sil, Suk Shin Yun, Xiaoying Yuan, Ai Guo Han, Chao Yuan, Chih Yi Yu, Kai Li Yu, Li Chin Yu, Sheng−Chun Yu, Young Hwoan Youn, Chul Hwoan Youn, Cin Ok Youn, Yeo Bok Youn, Jae Yeon Yoon, Jung Sang Yoon, Young Jan Yoon, Seung Rok Yoon, Hak−Sun Kim, Hak−Woo Kim, Kwang Hee Yoon, Ji En Yoon, Byung Hee Yoon, Kyung Deog Yoon, In Soo Yoon, Min−Sub Yoon, In−Sub Yoon, Chan−Kyung Park, Hyung Sik Yoon, Jin Hwan Yoo, Sung Yoo, Young Ae Yoo, Ho Yang Yoo, Su Jung Yoo, Sang Won Yoo, Seung Han Yoo, Ha Young Yoo, Dong Khun Yoo, Yon Jung Yim, Chong Hwa Yim, Young Sook Yim, Ki Sun Yim, So Hung Yeh, Chia Chu Yeh, Tsai Chu Yeh, Chih Yu Yeh, Wen−Rong Yeh, Hsin−Ti Yang, Jen−Hsing Yang, Pen−Po Yang, Man−Chiou Yang, Yu−Ling Yang, Fen−Lan Yang, Jen−Tzong Yang, Chun−Chieh Wu, Ching−Chun Wu, Yang Wu, Yu−Fen Wu, Chia−Chen Wu, Pei−Chen Wu, Kun Kuang Wu, Mei−Yueh Wu, Hsian−Ju Wu, Cheng−Ju Wu, Cheng−Han Wu, Li−Cheng Wu, Chen−Jung Wu, Meng−Ju Wu, Li−Lin Wu, Chao−Shih Wu, Chia−Chi Wei, Ping−Lun Wei, Li−Yu Wei, Ho Chien Wei, Dawei Wang, Ming Wang, Yuk Lan Wang Wong, Wei Wang, Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang, Po−En Wang, Fang Ching Tsui, Fang Chi Tsui, Chia Hsiang Tsui, Chien Mei Tsui, Tu Hsiu Tsui, Huan−Min Tseng, Wen−Hsi Tseng, Hsiu−Linag Tseng, Fan Zee Eric Tsang, Yeu−Jiunn Tsai, Keng−Mu Tsai, Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie, Dario Toro−Quintero, Paulina Toro−Isaza, Susana Toro−Isaza, Liliana Isaza, Andres D Toro−Betancur, Chien−Hwa Tong, Laura Tellez Gomez, Marcela Tellez Gomez, Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez, Jorge

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 250 of 290
Alberto Tellez Chaves, Kwei−You Tao, Wan−Hsuan Tao, You−Chen Tao, Ru−Ying Tao, Yueh−Ching Tao, Min Sue Suh, Dong Kwan Suh, Mi Ran Suh, You Ho Suh, Po−Wei Su, Po−Lin Su, Hsueh−Lan Tang, Chun−Chen Su, Yin Yuan Su, Po Hsieh Su, Yu Hua Su, Ching−Fu Su, Jee Min Sohn, Min Jeong Sohn, Ho Joon Sohn, In Ju Sohn, Vivian Siu, Ivy H K Siu, Stanley S T Siu, Kseniva Sitnikov, Maxim Sitnikov,Galsira Sitnikov, Oleg Sitnikov, Jae Hyung Sim, Hyun Jung Sim, Youn Woo Sim, Hyun Yong Sim, Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg, Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg, Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg, Jae Lim Shon, Won Ju Shin, Jae Hoon Shin, Kyung Sook Shin, Moon Soo Shin, Ji Min Shin, Ji Ye Shin, Chang Yeol Shin, Jin Young Shin, Sun Hee Shim, Soon Yong Shim, Bo Soo Shim, Sug Soo Shim, Jie Hye Shim, Young Hoon Shim, Chung Hwa Shim, Myung Seong Shim, Kai−Li Shih, Yao−Meng Shih, Heng−Shiang Shih, Jeong Hwa Seo, Dong Hwan Seo, Dong Shin Seo, Moung Sook Seo, Seung Beom Seo, Hyun Hong Seo, Ho Jung Seo, Soo Yung Ryoo, Yung Chan Ryoo, Ja Hye Ryoo, Hyuk Hwan Ryoo, Marie Rose Romero, Jose Romero, Adrian V Rodrigo, Concepcion V Rodrigo, Raulie D Rodrigo, Hyun Wook Park, Hyun Sung Park, Hye Sun Park, Young Woo Park, Joung Hye Park, Joung June Park, Hwa Ja Park, Tae Heup Park, Shin Ae Kim, Sun Ae Kim, Hong Ryong Kim, Seung Rye Park, Yun Kyung Chung, Seon Og Park, In Sun Park, Jee Sun Park, Jang Sun Park, Ae Ryun Park, Jae Kwan Park, Jung Woo Park, Yoon Sok Park, Don Suk Park, Yi Yang Pan, Pei Chun Pan, Ching−Keun Pan, Te−Jen Pan, Te−Han Pan, Chin−Hua Pan, Chii−Ching Pan, Min Hyun Noh, Hye Rim Noh, Dong Hyun Noh, Jung Hee Noh, Chi Seung Noh, Yong Suk Moon, Hyun Sun Moon, Jin Suk Moon, Mi Ja Moon, Joon Sik Moon, Se−Young Min, Seon−Young Min, Ji−Young Min, Young−Sook Min, Hyung Min, Hao−Hua Tang, Chi−Hua Tang, Shiu−Lan Ma, Yen−Po Liu, Tzu−Hao Liu, I−Wen Liu, Mei−Ling Liu Lo, Chiang Ling Tsai, Te−Hung Tsai, Yu−Hao Liu, Mei Chih Liu, Shang−Fu Liu, Alice Liu, Wen−Chien Lin, Chien−Yu Lin, Chen Yin Lin, Yu−Hung Lin, Yu−Ching Chen, Kai−Nan Chen, Ming Ling Lin, Wei−Hung Lin, Hung−Wei Lin, Wen Hui Lin, Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin, You−Sheng Lin, Tsung Ming Lin, Li Li Lin, Ko−Ting Lin, Szu−Yin Lin, Chin−Ching Lin, Hwa−Hsiung Lin, Chia−Yu Lin, Min−Cheng Lin, Hui−Mei Lin, Hsien−Lin Lin, Chuang−Yeh Lin, Chuang−Ju Lin, Li Lin Lee, Ho−Whei Lin, Chung Nan Lin, Yi Ching Lin, Wei Hsuen Lin, Wei Ting Lin, Shu−Ching Lin, Chia Kai Lin, Wen Yuan Lin, Hou Chou Lin, Ching Ming Lin, Chen−Chin Lin, Pin−Pin Liao, Hung−Hsiang Liao, I−Ping Liao, Hsuan−Ping Liao, Mei−li Liao, Wen−Hsien Liao, Yi Chin Liao, Yi Chan Liao, Hsiu Fang Liao, Pen−Yu Liao, Wei−Lin Liao, Shun−Jen Liao, Shu−Chen Liao, Chun−Hsiung Liao, Hiu Wai Leung, Yi Ting Leung, Siu Fong Leung Wong, Koon Tai Leung, Wing Yin Leung, Ho Yin Leung, Kwai Loi Leung Lee, Koon Cheung Tom Leung, Kyung Soon Lee, Yun Chang Lee, Se Hyup Lee, Se Jong Lee, Jeen Ran Lee, Young Kyu Lee, Seung Min Lee, Seung Jai Lee, Hee Sook Lee, Young Ho Lee, Kun Woo Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Joon Woo Lee, Duk Soon Lee, Young Cheon Lee, Sung Hyun Lee, Sung Joon Lee, Han Na Lee, Sook Hyun Lee, Suh Jin Lee, Sun Hee Lee, Yong Ki Lee, Jee Hoon Lee, Yung Soon Lee, Yien Sough Lee, Zin−Pha Li, Mei−Jung Lee, Woo Yong Lee, Hee Yong Lee, Jin Yong Lee, Ai Ran Lee, Kyu Baik Lee, Yoon Suk Lee, Chang Jin Lee, Jung Ja Lee, Suk Il Lee, Suk Min Lee, Ae Kyung Lee, Jae Kon Lee, Wook Hyung Lee, Eun−Kyung Lee, Hyo Won Lee, Hyo Won Lee, Young Ja Lee, Dae Yeon Lee, Sang Heui Lee, Sang Jin Lee, Sang Gyu Lee, Je Ho Lee, Chil Ok Lee, King Yip Lau, King Yin Lau, Hiu Yan Lau, Wai Yee Lau Leung, Sai Yue Lau, Yen Ju Lai, Chun Wei Lai, Ching−Hsiu Lai, Ying−Ming Lai, I−Chun Lai, Jen−Tien Lai, Jin Sung Kwon, Jin Hyeng Kwon, Yoeun Hwa Kwon, Song Joo Kwon, Hyeong Jin Kwon, Hyo Jeong Kwon, You Young Kwon, Hee Jae Kwon, Yu Wei Kuo, Yo−tzu Kuo, Ching−Yang Kuo, Wen−Hui Kuo, Chien−Ting Kuo, Mei−Miao Kuo, Chin−Hsin Kuo, Chih−Hsiang Ko, Chih−Chieh Ko, Wen−Lin Ko, Sung Hoon Ko, Sung Hyun Ko, Mee Sun Ko, Ji Ho Kim, Hee Seung Kim, Young Sun Kim, Tae−Ho Kim, Dae Woong Kim, A Young Kim, Da Young Kim, Jin Hee Kim, Ssang Gi Kim, Tae Hyun Kim, Tae Kyu Kim, Heung Joo Kim, Soon Ae Kim, Jee Sun Kim, Sae Hoon Kim, Young Sook Kim Baek, See Ouk Kim, Jae Kyun Kim, Jae Ho Kim, Kyung Hee Kim, Sae Hyun Kim, Hyun Woo Kim, Kyung Sook Kim, Wan Sun Kim, Hyung Sun Kim, Myong Soon Kim, Kyung Joong Kim, Won Woo Kim, Hae Jin Kim, Yeon Joo Kim, Kyung Ho Kim, Hee Jin Kim, Seung Hwan Kim, Young Hee Kim, Kwon Gi Kim, Jung Woo Kim, Jung Hoon Kim, Duk Soo Kim, Kwang Won Kim, Seong Ik Kim, Jeong Kyung Kim, Jeong Sun Kim, Keun Young Kim, Joong Heon Kim, Yeon Jin Kim, Tae Ho Kim, Young Mo Kim, Jong Won Kim, June

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 251 of 290
Young Kim, June Gil Kim, Kwee Sik Jang, Hwan Kyum Kim, Young Chan Kim, So Jeong Kim, Sung Ja Kim, Han Soo Kim, Moon Kyung Kim, Moon Jung Kim, Hae Won Kim, Hyung Seok Kim, Hee Jung Kim, Sung Sook Kim, Dong Ho Kim, Jae Myung Kim, Choong Nam Kim, Joung Kwan Kim, Joung Nam Kim, Ok Hyeun Kim, Chang Hack Kim, Jun Hyun Kim, Ki Hyun Kim, Hak Soo Kim, Chan Young Kim, Min Seong Kim, Geon Tae Kim, Soo Jeong Kim, Hwa Shin Kim, Chae Young Kim, An Kuo Kao, Yu Lien Liang, Chien Kuei Kao, Yang Sook Kang, Jeoung Soo Kang, Ha Na Kang, Shin Ho Kang, Eun Tae Kang, Ik Hee Kang, Yo Han Kang, Young Hee Kang, Chang−Sik Kang, Yu−Chia Kai, Yu−Ling Kai, Ching−Jen Kai, Chuan−Ching Kai, Yu Wen Juan, Yoon Suk Jo, Yoo Jin Jo, So Nim Jo, Jae Sung Jo, Cheng−Hung Jiang, Mei−Ju Jiang, Su Chen Jiang, Yi−Yen Jiang, Jae Hyeok Jang, Ya Jin Jang, Kyu Hur, Kyung Hwa Hur, Yool Hur, Myung Ok Hur, Fu−Kai Huang, Fu−Nan Huang, Lai−Hao Huang, Chin−Chang Huang, Ta−Wei Huang, Ta−You Huang, Ta−Lun Huang, Jen−Chieh Huang, Bi Chen Huang, Chi−Fang Hsu, Shu Chen Hsu Wu, Shih Chieh Hsu, Chen Hsieh, Chia Hsieh, Hui Ling Hsieh, Pang−Chi Hsieh, Tsung−Yi Hsieh, Hui Jou Hsieh, Jui−Hsin Hsieh, Hsiu Chin Hsieh, Hsi−Chieh Hsieh, Chia−Jun Hsieh, Yi−Jun Hsieh, Hoa−Chao Hsieh, Chou−Yi Hsieh, Yu−Chin Hsiao, Yu−Ju Hsiao, Yu−Chieh Hsiao, Mei−Shu Hsiao, Chun−Te Hsiao, Mu−Jou Hsiao, Chiao−Yun Hsiao, Li−Mei Hsiao, Cheng−Ming Hsiao, Yoon Ki Hong, Kyung He Hong, Sung Koo Hong, Jee Min Hong, Myong Soo Hong, Jung Sook Hong, Jae Kyung Han, Jae Suck Han, Chung Won Han, Kyung Hack Han, Jae Young Jun, Chae Ok Jun, Woo Young Jun, Bon Min Gu, Bon Young Gu, Ja Kyung Gu, Mi Jin Gu, Anna Gorilovskaia, Lev Gorilovskiy, Tatyana Gorilovskaia, Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy, Yuan Wang, Bin Wang, Fuyu Wang, Hong−Mei Gong, Po Man Fung, Chi Leung Fung, Chiu Ling Fung Leung, Kai−Tim Fung, Elissa Nell R Espinueva, Evelyn R Espinueva, Edward Rae R Espinueva, Fe Helengrace R Espinueva, Eugene Espinueva C, Natividad M Cruz, Bernardo V Cruz, Tae Sik Chung, Won Sik Chung, Jin Hee Chung, Chin Dong Chung, Kai−Hung Chuang, Hui−Yu Chuang, Hui−Tsung Chuang, Mei−Lin Chuang, Yu−Te Chuang, Pei−ju Chuang, Tzu−Hsin Chuang, Mei−Jung Chuang, Ta−Ching Chuang, Yi−Hsuan Chou, Mao−Chuan Chou, Wei Yen, Yu−Lin Chou, Wei−Jen Chou, Yu−Shan Chou, Wei−Chun Chou, Shu−Fang Chou, Jin−Chen Chou, Chih−Ling Chou, Chih−Wei Chou, Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou, Chung−Chun Chou, Pi−Yun Chou, Chun−Wen Chou, Sung−Hi Choi, Sung Bum Choi, Bog−Hi Choi, Young Kil Choi, Hee Jin Choi, Woo Hyun Choi, Hyung Jin Choi, Yoon Hee Choi, Soo Bong Choi, Eun Ah Choi, Eun Suk Choi, Jung Ran Choi, Song Hak Choi, Min Koo Choi, Sook Ja Choi, Jeong Hwan Choi, Jae Hyuck Choi, Bong Ok Choi, Heung Kohl Choi, Daseolhan Choi, Han Wool Choi, Kwang Ae Choi, Ha Sub Choi, Woo Seok Choe, Young Ja Choe, Yoon Seok Choe, Yen−Ling Chiu,Yen−Chih Chiu, Hsueh−Hui Chiu, Ching−Chi Chiu, Feng I Chien, Cheng−Tai Chien, Su Yin Chien, Chung Hsiung Chien, Yi Yuan Chiang, Yuan−Kai Chiang, Yueh−Mei Chiang, Po−Cheng Chiang, I−Chieh Cheng, Yi−Fan Cheng, Chiu−Liang Cheng, Shu−Hua Cheng, Wei−Ju Chen, Wei−Shin Chen, Li−Hua Chen, Yun−Ping Chen, Shih Hwa Chen, Hisn−Yun Chen, Wei Chen, Pao−Chu Chen, I−Fan Chen, Siao−Shee Chao, Liang−Chung Chen, Wu−Cheng Chen, Jun−Chiu Chen, Hsiu−Hua Chen, Kuen−Yan Chen, Chih−Yu Chen, Ling−Ching Chen, Hung−Liang Chen, Hsin−I Chen, Yi−Hsuan Chen, Po−Lin Chen, Chiung−Chu Chen, Hui−Hsiung Chen, Yu−Hung Chen, Yu−Tai Chen, Chih Hui Chen, Hsiang−Fu Chen, Chia−Ling Chen, Yueh−Ying Chen, Guo−Chueng Chen, Mu Hua Chen, Chien Chuan Chen, Chao Fang Chen, Chi−Jen Chen, Hsiao−Han Hsueh, Jen−Chieh Hsueh, Yu−Tai Chang, Min Il Chang, Min Ah Chang, Mi Ok Chang, Yong Sik Chang, Yao−Jen Chang, Yao−Wen Chang, Shu−Hua Chang, Yi−Ming Chang, Yu−Hui Chang, Tun−Wei Chang, Hsiang−Ping Chang, Yen−Pin Chang, Chia−How Chang, Hsu−Yi Chang, Ta−Peng Chang, Tsung−Wei Chang, Wei−Ting Chang, Yu−Fang Hsu, Ruey Rong Chang, Jae Bum Chang, Jae Woo Chang, Jae Young Chang, Hye Yeon Chang, Myung Hoon Chang, Sheng−Fu Chang, Chun−Fu Chang, Yen−Hui Chang, Li−Yueh Chang, Yung Cheng Chang, Ching−Wen Chang, Li−Chen Chang, Chan−Wei Chang, Chan−Zue Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, Chan−Chia Chang, Hsueh−Mei Chang, Ching−Farn Chang, Che−Pei Chang, Yen−Li Chang, Jin−Fong Chang, Chin−Yu Chang, Man Chi Chan, Man Zse Chan, Man Kit Chan, Pik Chiu, Chee Cheung Chan, Yoon Yi Cha, Sun Yi Cha, Nak Soon Cha, Myung Jo Cha, Katriona Gillian Buhler, Gillian Webb Buhler, Albrecht Buhler, Jun Bum Bang, Ji Young Bang, In Sun Bang, Yong Ho Bang, Hyun Jung Bak, Eun Kyu Bak, Syun

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 252 of 290

03/22/2000 04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/20/2000 06/27/2000
06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/30/2000 07/11/2000 07/11/2000 07/18/2000 07/18/2000 07/18/2000 07/20/2000 07/31/2000 07/31/2000 08/10/2000 08/11/2000

Hee Bak, No Woong Bak, Lev I Babiev, Igor S Babiev, Tae Eun Ahn, Soo Yeon Ahn, Jae Bum Ahn, Kyung Sook Ahn; adding Yi Yuan Chiang. Summons not issued (ir) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
13 ANSWER filed by defendant USA to 1st amended complaint [12−1] (yl) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
14 SECOND STATUS REPORT by defendant purs to 2/7/00 Crt Ord (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
15 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs purs to 2/7/00 Crt Ord (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
16 SUPPL STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (rrey) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant USA to dismiss 1st A/C , or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C ; req to defer setting a discov sched pending disposition motion hearing set for 9:30 8/28/00 (rrey) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
18 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USA of motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
19 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USA of motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
20 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King, the parties have stip to the fol: 6/27/00 dft files opening memo; 7/18/00 plfs fil ans memo; 7/31/00 dft files rply. (yc) (Entered: 07/03/2000)
21 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification , &for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt ; motion hearing set for 9:30 8/28/00 Lodged Ord (rrey) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
22 MEMORANDUM OF P/A IN SUPPORT by plaintiffs of motion for class certification [21−1], for enlargement of time to mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
23 MEMO OF PA's IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (lk) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
24 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King re brief sched for plfs mot for class cert (rrey) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
25 MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
26 CORRECTED MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
27 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for class certification [21−1], motion for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (lk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
28 REPLY MEMO by defendant USA in support of its motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (lk) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
30 NOTICE OF INTENT to rely on attached case law by plaintiffs in opp to dfts motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
29 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs in suppt of motion for class certification [21−1], &for enlargement of time to mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (rrey) (Entered:

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 253 of 290

09/01/2000 09/06/2000
10/10/2000 10/16/2000
11/30/2000 12/04/2000 12/04/2000 12/04/2000 12/06/2000 12/08/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000 12/12/2000 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 02/12/2001 02/23/2001

08/18/2000)
31 NOTICE OF INTENT by plaintiffs To Rely on Case Law in opp to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (yl) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
32 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King IT IS SO ORD: continuing hearing on dfts motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2], plfs motion for class certification [21−1], for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] to 9:30 10/16/00 (rrey) (Entered: 09/07/2000)
33 NOTICE by defendant USA of recent decision (rrey) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
34 MINUTES: Re dfts mot to dism or in the alt for jgm on the pleadings; mot for class cert and for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert: Crt directs fur brief on the issues discussed in open crt w/in forty−five (45) days hereof; Crt defers ruling on mot for class cert and for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert pending fur brief on the mot to dism or in the alt, mot for jgm on pleadings IT IS SO ORD by Judge George H. King CR: Irene Nakamura (rrey) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
37 RESPONSE to the crt's request of 10/16/00 by plaintiffs and defendants re minutes [34−1] (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang for temporary restraining order , for preliminary injunction Lodged propsd order (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
36 MEMORANDUM OF P &A IN SUPPORT by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang of exparte application for temporary restraining order [35−1], exparte application for preliminary injunction [35−2] (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
42 EMERGENCY MOTION filed by plaintiff fr provisional class certification or permisison to allw orig cmplt naming all investors to stand class actn (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
38 SUBMISSION of addtl den of Class Members I−829 Appl by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
40 Memo of pain OPPOSITION by defendant USA to exparte motion for temporary restraining order [35−1], exparte motion for preliminary injunction [35−2], or in alt that the req for bond be granted w/out modification; motion for class certification [21−1] (bg) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
39 MINUTES: denying plfs exparte appl for temporary restraining order [35−1]; denying w/out prej plfs exparte appl for preliminary injunction [35−2]; denying motion for class certification [21−1] by Judge George H. King CR: None (ENT 12/12/00) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
41 SUBMISSION by plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang of denial of named plfs I−829 appl as an addtl suppt of exparte appl for temporary restraining order [35−1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED plf prop ord re req for provisonal class certif &applc for tro etc (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
43 RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/16/00 (Re: ) CR: Irene Nakamura (ghap) (ghap) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/16/00 (ghap) (ghap) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
44 NOTICE of filing additional ntcs of intent to deny pla class members' removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (bg) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
46 SUBMISSION of addtl denial of class members I−829 appl by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 254 of 290

02/23/2001 02/26/2001 03/08/2001 03/16/2001 03/21/2001
03/22/2001 03/23/2001 04/04/2001 04/12/2001 04/13/2001 04/20/2001 04/23/2001 04/24/2001 05/02/2001
05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/04/2001

47 ADDITIONAL NOTICE by plaintiffs of filing ntc of intent to deny plf class members removal of conditional residency (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
45 MOTION by plaintiff for order setting discov sched ; motion hearing set for 9:30 3/26/01 Lodged propsd ord (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
48 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] (bg) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
49 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts opp to motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] (rrey) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
50 MINUTES: that the motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] is taken under submission, resetting hearing on motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1] 9:30 3/27/01, resetting hearing on motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] 9:30 3/27/01 by Judge George H. King CR: n/p (bg) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
51 Additional NOTICE of filing ntcs of intent to deny pla class members' removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (bg) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
52 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
53 RESPONSE by defendant USA to the Crts req to consider voluntary rmd of investor plfs I−829 denials (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2001)
54 REPLY to dfts resp; &REQUEST by plaintiff to expedite decision; ldg propsd ord (2) (rrey) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
LODGED SECOND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff .(FWD TO CRD) (rrey) (Entered: 04/17/2001)
55 NOTICE OF FILING additional ntc of intent to deny plf class members removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (rrey) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
56 REPLY by defendant to plfs resp [54−1] (rrey) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
57 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 04/26/2001)
58 MINUTES: GRANT in part DENY in part motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2]; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/out prej as to counts 1−4, 6−7; GR w/ prej as to counts 1, 3, 6 &those parts of counts 1 &4 which do not involve the retroactivity clm; GR w/o prej as to count 5; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is DENIED w/o prej as to counts 2, 4, 7; plf Chiangs improper retroactive appl clm is RMD to INS; finding the motion for order setting discov sched [45−1], exparte appl for provisional class certification or permisison to allw orig cmplt naming all investors to stand class actn [42−1] moot; by Judge George H. King CR: None (ENT 5/3/01) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; Ord ldg by plfs n 4/12/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; (Propsd) Ord GR plfs mot to set discov sched ldg by plfs on 2/26/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; 2nd alt (propsd) ord ldg by plfs on 4/13/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; 1st alt (propsd) ord ldg by plfs on 4/12/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; (Propsd) Ord on plfs mot for class cert &enlargement of time ldg by plfs on 7/11/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
59 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/out prej as to counts 1−4, 6−7; as to plf Chiang dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/ regard to counts 1, 3, 6 &those parts of counts 2 &4 which do not involve the retroactivity clm w/ prej; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/o prej as to

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 255 of 290

05/04/2001 05/16/2001 05/16/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/29/2001 05/29/2001
05/30/2001 06/06/2001 06/08/2001
06/12/2001 06/12/2001 07/02/2001

count 5; as to plf Chiang dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is den w/o prej as to counts 2, 4 &7; &plf Chiangs improper retroactive appl clm is rmd to the INS for due consideration &compilation of an admin record consisten w/ the 5/2/01 ord terminating case (MD JS−6) (ENT 5/7/01) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
60 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
61 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs , or alt for class certification or alt for reconsideration of jgm entered on 5/7/01; motion hearing set for 9:30 6/11/01 (bg) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
62 MEMORANDUM OF PA IN SUPPORT by plaintiff of motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], motion for class certification [61−2], motion for reconsideration [61−3] (bg) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
63 MOTION by defendant to alter or amend jgm ; motion hearing set for 9:30 6/11/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
64 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant of motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
65 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
66 NOTICE by plaintiffs of intent to rely on Local Rule 7.16 &the inherent auth on the Crt &not fed Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in suppt of motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] (rrey) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
67 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] (rrey) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
68 REPLY by plaintiffs to dfts opp to motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
69 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) taking dfts motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1], plfs motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] off calendar by Judge George H. King CR: None. (rrey) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
70 MINUTES: denying motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] by Judge George H. King CR: None (cc cnsl) (rrey) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
71 MINUTES: denying motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] by Judge George H. King CR: None (cc cnsl) (rrey) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
72 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Kyung Sook Ahn, plaintiff Jae Bum Ahn, plaintiff Soo Yeon Ahn, plaintiff Tae Eun Ahn, plaintiff Igor S Babiev, plaintiff Lev I Babiev, plaintiff No Woong Bak, plaintiff Syun Hee Bak, plaintiff Eun Kyu Bak, plaintiff Hyun Jung Bak, plaintiff Yong Ho Bang, plaintiff In Sun Bang, plaintiff Ji Young Bang, plaintiff Jun Bum Bang, plaintiff Albrecht Buhler, plaintiff Gillian Webb Buhler, plaintiff Katriona Gillian Buhler, plaintiff Myung Jo Cha, plaintiff Nak Soon Cha, plaintiff Sun Yi Cha, plaintiff Yoon Yi Cha, plaintiff Chee Cheung Chan, plaintiff Pik Chiu, plaintiff Man Kit Chan, plaintiff Man Zse Chan, plaintiff Man Chi Chan, plaintiff Chin−Yu Chang, plaintiff Jin−Fong Chang, plaintiff Yen−Li Chang, plaintiff Che−Pei Chang, plaintiff Ching−Farn Chang, plaintiff Hsueh−Mei Chang, plaintiff Chan−Chia Chang, plaintiff Chan−Haw Chang, plaintiff Chan−Zue Chang, plaintiff Chan−Wei Chang, plaintiff Li−Chen Chang, plaintiff Ching−Wen Chang, plaintiff Yung Cheng Chang, plaintiff Li−Yueh Chang, plaintiff Yen−Hui Chang, plaintiff Chun−Fu Chang, plaintiff Sheng−Fu Chang, plaintiff Myung Hoon Chang, plaintiff Hye Yeon Chang, plaintiff Jae Young Chang, plaintiff Jae Woo Chang, plaintiff Jae Bum Chang, plaintiff Ruey Rong Chang, plaintiff Yu−Fang Hsu, plaintiff Wei−Ting Chang, plaintiff Tsung−Wei Chang, plaintiff Ta−Peng Chang, plaintiff Hsu−Yi Chang, plaintiff Chia−How Chang, plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang, plaintiff Tsung−Ming

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 256 of 290
Chang, plaintiff Chiao−Ying Chang, plaintiff Yen−Pin Chang, plaintiff Hsiang−Ping Chang, plaintiff Tun−Wei Chang, plaintiff Yu−Hui Chang, plaintiff Yi−Ming Chang, plaintiff Shu−Hua Chang, plaintiff Yao−Wen Chang, plaintiff Yao−Jen Chang, plaintiff Yong Sik Chang, plaintiff Mi Ok Chang, plaintiff Min Ah Chang, plaintiff Min Il Chang, plaintiff Yu−Tai Chang, plaintiff Jen−Chieh Hsueh, plaintiff Hsiao−Han Hsueh, plaintiff Chi−Jen Chen, plaintiff Chao Fang Chen, plaintiff Chien Chuan Chen, plaintiff Mu Hua Chen, plaintiff Guo−Chueng Chen, plaintiff Yueh−Ying Chen, plaintiff Chia−Ling Chen, plaintiff Hsiang−Fu Chen, plaintiff Chih Hui Chen, plaintiff Yu−Tai Chen, plaintiff Yu−Hung Chen, plaintiff Hui−Hsiung Chen, plaintiff Chiung−Chu Chen, plaintiff Po−Lin Chen, plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chen, plaintiff Hsin−I Chen, plaintiff Hung−Liang Chen, plaintiff Ling−Ching Chen, plaintiff Chih−Yu Chen, plaintiff Kuen−Yan Chen, plaintiff Hsiu−Hua Chen, plaintiff Jun−Chiu Chen, plaintiff Wu−Cheng Chen, plaintiff Liang−Chung Chen, plaintiff Siao−Shee Chao, plaintiff I−Fan Chen, plaintiff Pao−Chu Chen, plaintiff Wei − Chen, plaintiff Hisn−Yun Chen, plaintiff Shih Hwa Chen, plaintiff Yun−Ping Chen, plaintiff Li−Hua Chen, plaintiff Wei−Shin Chen, plaintiff Wei−Ju Chen, plaintiff Shu−Hua Cheng, plaintiff Chiu−Liang Cheng, plaintiff Yi−Fan Cheng, plaintiff I−Chieh Cheng, plaintiff Po−Cheng Chiang, plaintiff Yueh−Mei Chiang, plaintiff Yuan−Kai Chiang, plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang, plaintiff Chung Hsiung Chien, plaintiff Su Yin Chien, plaintiff Cheng−Tai Chien, plaintiff Feng I Chien, plaintiff Ching−Chi Chiu, plaintiff Hsueh−Hui Chiu, plaintiff Yen−Chih Chiu, plaintiff Yen−Ling Chiu, plaintiff Yoon Seok Choe, plaintiff Young Ja Choe, plaintiff Woo Seok Choe, plaintiff Ha Sub Choi, plaintiff Kwang Ae Choi, plaintiff Han Wool Choi, plaintiff Daseolhan Choi, plaintiff Heung Kohl Choi, plaintiff Bong Ok Choi, plaintiff Jae Hyuck Choi, plaintiff Jeong Hwan Choi, plaintiff Sook Ja Choi, plaintiff Min Koo Choi, plaintiff Song Hak Choi, plaintiff Jung Ran Choi, plaintiff Eun Suk Choi, plaintiff Eun Ah Choi, plaintiff Soo Bong Choi, plaintiff Yoon Hee Choi, plaintiff Hyung Jin Choi, plaintiff Woo Hyun Choi, plaintiff Hee Jin Choi, plaintiff Young Kil Choi, plaintiff Bog−Hi Choi, plaintiff Sung Bum Choi, plaintiff Sung−Hi Choi, plaintiff Chun−Wen Chou, plaintiff Pi−Yun Chou, plaintiff Chung−Chun Chou, plaintiff Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou, plaintiff Chih−Wei Chou, plaintiff Chih−Ling Chou, plaintiff Jin−Chen Chou, plaintiff Shu−Fang Chou, plaintiff Wei−Chun Chou, plaintiff Yu−Shan Chou, plaintiff Wei−Jen Chou, plaintiff Yu−Lin Chou, plaintiff Wei Yen, plaintiff Mao−Chuan Chou, plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chou, plaintiff Ta−Ching Chuang, plaintiff Mei−Jung Chuang, plaintiff Tzu−Hsin Chuang, plaintiff Pei−ju Chuang, plaintiff Yu−Te Chuang, plaintiff Mei−Lin Chuang, plaintiff Hui−Tsung Chuang, plaintiff Hui−Yu Chuang, plaintiff Kai−Hung Chuang, plaintiff Chin Dong Chung, plaintiff Jin Hee Chung, plaintiff Won Sik Chung, plaintiff Tae Sik Chung, plaintiff Bernardo V Cruz, plaintiff Natividad M Cruz, plaintiff Eugene Espinueva C, plaintiff Fe Helengrace R Espinueva, plaintiff Edward Rae R Espinueva, plaintiff Evelyn R Espinueva, plaintiff Elissa Nell R Espinueva, plaintiff Kai−Tim Fung, plaintiff Chiu Ling Fung Leung, plaintiff Chi Leung Fung, plaintiff Po Man Fung, plaintiff Hong−Mei Gong, plaintiff Fuyu Wang, plaintiff Bin − Wang, plaintiff Yuan Wang, plaintiff Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy, plaintiff Tatyana Gorilovskaia, plaintiff Lev Gorilovskiy, plaintiff Anna Gorilovskaia, plaintiff Mi Jin Gu, plaintiff Ja Kyung Gu, plaintiff Bon Young Gu, plaintiff Bon Min Gu, plaintiff Woo Young Jun, plaintiff Chae Ok Jun, plaintiff Jae Young Jun, plaintiff Kyung Hack Han, plaintiff Chung Won Han, plaintiff Jae Suck Han, plaintiff Jae Kyung Han, plaintiff Jung Sook Hong, plaintiff Myong Soo Hong, plaintiff Jee Min Hong, plaintiff Sung Koo Hong, plaintiff Kyung He Hong, plaintiff Yoon Ki Hong, plaintiff Cheng−Ming Hsiao, plaintiff Li−Mei Hsiao, plaintiff Chiao−Yun Hsiao, plaintiff Mu−Jou Hsiao, plaintiff Chun−Te Hsiao, plaintiff Mei−Shu Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Chieh Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Ju Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Chin Hsiao, plaintiff Chou−Yi Hsieh, plaintiff Hoa−Chao Hsieh, plaintiff Yi−Jun Hsieh, plaintiff Chia−Jun Hsieh, plaintiff Hsi−Chieh Hsieh, plaintiff Hsien−Ming Hsieh, plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh, plaintiff Pei−Chen Hsieh, plaintiff Pei−Shan Hsieh, plaintiff Hsiu Chin Hsieh, plaintiff Jui−Hsin Hsieh, plaintiff Hui Jou Hsieh, plaintiff Tsung−Yi Hsieh, plaintiff Pang−Chi Hsieh, plaintiff Hui Ling Hsieh, plaintiff Chia Hsieh, plaintiff Chen Hsieh, plaintiff Shih Chieh Hsu, plaintiff Shu Chen Hsu Wu, plaintiff Chi−Fang Hsu, plaintiff Bi Chen Huang, plaintiff Jen−Chieh Huang, plaintiff Ta−Lun Huang, plaintiff Ta−You Huang, plaintiff Ta−Wei Huang, plaintiff Chin−Chang Huang, plaintiff Lai−Hao Huang, plaintiff Fu−Nan Huang, plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 257 of 290
Fu−Kai Huang, plaintiff Myung Ok Hur, plaintiff Yool Hur, plaintiff Kyung Hwa Hur, plaintiff Kyu Hur, plaintiff Ya Jin Jang, plaintiff Jae Hyeok Jang, plaintiff Yi−Yen Jiang, plaintiff Su Chen Jiang, plaintiff Mei−Ju Jiang, plaintiff Cheng−Hung Jiang, plaintiff Jae Sung Jo, plaintiff So Nim Jo, plaintiff Yoo Jin Jo, plaintiff Yoon Suk Jo, plaintiff Yu Wen Juan, plaintiff Chuan−Ching Kai, plaintiff Ching−Jen Kai, plaintiff Yu−Ling Kai, plaintiff Yu−Chia Kai, plaintiff Chang−Sik Kang, plaintiff Young Hee Kang, plaintiff Yo Han Kang, plaintiff Ik Hee Kang, plaintiff Eun Tae Kang, plaintiff Shin Ho Kang, plaintiff Ha Na Kang, plaintiff Jeoung Soo Kang, plaintiff Yang Sook Kang, plaintiff Chien Kuei Kao, plaintiff Yu Lien Liang, plaintiff An Kuo Kao, plaintiff Chae Young Kim, plaintiff Hwa Shin Kim, plaintiff Soo Jeong Kim, plaintiff Geon Tae Kim, plaintiff Min Seong Kim, plaintiff Chan Young Kim, plaintiff Hak Soo Kim, plaintiff Ki Hyun Kim, plaintiff Jun Hyun Kim, plaintiff Chang Hack Kim, plaintiff Ok Hyeun Kim, plaintiff Joung Nam Kim, plaintiff Joung Kwan Kim, plaintiff Choong Nam Kim, plaintiff Jae Myung Kim, plaintiff Dong Ho Kim, plaintiff Sung Sook Kim, plaintiff Hee Jung Kim, plaintiff Hyung Seok Kim, plaintiff Hae Won Kim, plaintiff Moon Jung Kim, plaintiff Moon Kyung Kim, plaintiff Han Soo Kim, plaintiff Sung Ja Kim, plaintiff So Jeong Kim, plaintiff Young Chan Kim, plaintiff Hwan Kyum Kim, plaintiff Kwee Sik Jang, plaintiff June Gil Kim, plaintiff June Young Kim, plaintiff Jong Won Kim, plaintiff Young Mo Kim, plaintiff Tae Ho Kim, plaintiff Yeon Jin Kim, plaintiff Joong Heon Kim, plaintiff Keun Young Kim, plaintiff Jeong Sun Kim, plaintiff Jeong Kyung Kim, plaintiff Seong Ik Kim, plaintiff Kwang Won Kim, plaintiff Duk Soo Kim, plaintiff Jung Hoon Kim, plaintiff Jung Woo Kim, plaintiff Kwon Gi Kim, plaintiff Young Hee Kim, plaintiff Seung Hwan Kim, plaintiff Hee Jin Kim, plaintiff Kyung Ho Kim, plaintiff Yeon Joo Kim, plaintiff Hae Jin Kim, plaintiff Won Woo Kim, plaintiff Kyung Joong Kim, plaintiff Myong Soon Kim, plaintiff Hyung Sun Kim, plaintiff Wan Sun Kim, plaintiff Kyung Sook Kim, plaintiff Hyun Woo Kim, plaintiff Sae Hyun Kim, plaintiff Kyung Hee Kim, plaintiff Jae Ho Kim, plaintiff Jae Kyun Kim, plaintiff See Ouk Kim, plaintiff Young Sook Kim Baek, plaintiff Sae Hoon Kim, plaintiff Jee Sun Kim, plaintiff Soon Ae Kim, plaintiff Heung Joo Kim, plaintiff Tae Kyu Kim, plaintiff Tae Hyun Kim, plaintiff Ssang Gi Kim, plaintiff Jin Hee Kim, plaintiff Da Young Kim, plaintiff A Young Kim, plaintiff Dae Woong Kim, plaintiff Tae−Ho Kim, plaintiff Young Sun Kim, plaintiff Hee Seung Kim, plaintiff Ji Ho Kim, plaintiff Mee Sun Ko, plaintiff Sung Hyun Ko, plaintiff Sung Hoon Ko, plaintiff Wen−Lin Ko, plaintiff Chih−Chieh Ko, plaintiff Chih−Hsiang Ko, plaintiff Sung Duck Kong, plaintiff Hye Ra Kong, plaintiff Hyun Jung Kong, plaintiff Min Suk Kong, plaintiff Chin−Hsin Kuo, plaintiff Mei−Miao Kuo, plaintiff Chien−Ting Kuo, plaintiff Wen−Hui Kuo, plaintiff Ching−Yang Kuo, plaintiff Yo−tzu Kuo, plaintiff Yu Wei Kuo, plaintiff Hee Jae Kwon, plaintiff You Young Kwon, plaintiff Hyo Jeong Kwon, plaintiff Hyeong Jin Kwon, plaintiff Song Joo Kwon, plaintiff Yoeun Hwa Kwon, plaintiff Jin Hyeng Kwon, plaintiff Jin Sung Kwon, plaintiff Jen−Tien Lai, plaintiff I−Chun Lai, plaintiff Yeh−Chien Lai, plaintiff Yu Kuei Lai, plaintiff Yen Chih Lai, plaintiff Chen Ju Lai, plaintiff Ying−Ming Lai, plaintiff Ching−Hsiu Lai, plaintiff Chun Wei Lai, plaintiff Yen Ju Lai, plaintiff Sai Yue Lau, plaintiff Wai Yee Lau Leung, plaintiff Hiu Yan Lau, plaintiff King Yin Lau, plaintiff King Yip Lau, plaintiff Chil Ok Lee, plaintiff Je Ho Lee, plaintiff Sang Gyu Lee, plaintiff Sang Jin Lee, plaintiff Sang Heui Lee, plaintiff Dae Yeon Lee, plaintiff Young Ja Lee, plaintiff Hyo Won Lee, plaintiff Hyo Won Lee, plaintiff Eun−Kyung Lee, plaintiff Wook Hyung Lee, plaintiff Jae Kon Lee, plaintiff Ae Kyung Lee, plaintiff Suk Min Lee, plaintiff Suk Il Lee, plaintiff Jung Ja Lee, plaintiff Chang Jin Lee, plaintiff Yoon Suk Lee, plaintiff Kyu Baik Lee, plaintiff Ai Ran Lee, plaintiff Jin Yong Lee, plaintiff Hee Yong Lee, plaintiff Woo Yong Lee, plaintiff Mei−Jung Lee, plaintiff Zin−Pha Li, plaintiff Yien Sough Lee, plaintiff Yung Soon Lee, plaintiff Jee Hoon Lee, plaintiff Yoon Sik Lee, plaintiff Jong Hee Lee, plaintiff Eung Jun Lee, plaintiff Sang Eun Lee, plaintiff Eung Sang Lee, plaintiff Yong Ki Lee, plaintiff Sun Hee Lee, plaintiff Suh Jin Lee, plaintiff Sook Hyun Lee, plaintiff Han Na Lee, plaintiff Sung Joon Lee, plaintiff Sung Hyun Lee, plaintiff Young Cheon Lee, plaintiff Duk Soon Lee, plaintiff Joon Woo Lee, plaintiff Sang Eun Lee, plaintiff Kun Woo Lee, plaintiff Young Ho Lee, plaintiff Hee Sook Lee, plaintiff Seung Jai Lee, plaintiff Seung Min Lee, plaintiff Young Kyu Lee, plaintiff Jeen Ran Lee, plaintiff Se Jong Lee, plaintiff Se Hyup Lee, plaintiff Yun Chang Lee, plaintiff Kyung Soon Lee, plaintiff Koon Cheung Tom Leung, plaintiff Kwai Loi Leung Lee, plaintiff Ho Yin Leung,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 258 of 290
plaintiff Wing Yin Leung, plaintiff Koon Tai Leung, plaintiff Siu Fong Leung Wong, plaintiff Yi Ting Leung, plaintiff Hiu Wai Leung, plaintiff Chun−Hsiung Liao, plaintiff Shu−Chen Liao, plaintiff Shun−Jen Liao, plaintiff Wei−Lin Liao, plaintiff Pen−Yu Liao, plaintiff Hsiu Fang Liao, plaintiff Yi Chan Liao, plaintiff Yi Chin Liao, plaintiff Wen−Hsien Liao, plaintiff Mei−li Liao, plaintiff Hsuan−Ping Liao, plaintiff I−Ping Liao, plaintiff Hung−Hsiang Liao, plaintiff Pin−Pin Liao, plaintiff Chen−Chin Lin, plaintiff Ching Ming Lin, plaintiff Hou Chou Lin, plaintiff Wen Yuan Lin, plaintiff Chia Kai Lin, plaintiff Shu−Ching Lin, plaintiff Wei Ting Lin, plaintiff Wei Hsuen Lin, plaintiff Yi Ching Lin, plaintiff Chung Nan Lin, plaintiff Ho−Whei Lin, plaintiff Li Lin Lee, plaintiff Chuang−Ju Lin, plaintiff Chuang−Yeh Lin, plaintiff Hsien−Lin Lin, plaintiff Hui−Mei Lin, plaintiff Min−Cheng Lin, plaintiff Chia−Yu Lin, plaintiff Hwa−Hsiung Lin, plaintiff Chin−Ching Lin, plaintiff Szu−Yin Lin, plaintiff Ko−Ting Lin, plaintiff Li Li Lin, plaintiff Tsung Ming Lin, plaintiff You−Sheng Lin, plaintiff Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin, plaintiff Wen Hui Lin, plaintiff Hung−Wei Lin, plaintiff Wei−Hung Lin, plaintiff Ming Ling Lin, plaintiff Kai−Nan Chen, plaintiff Yu−Ching Chen, plaintiff Yu−Hung Lin, plaintiff Chen Yin Lin, plaintiff Chien−Yu Lin, plaintiff Wen−Chien Lin, plaintiff Alice Liu, plaintiff Shang−Fu Liu, plaintiff Mei Chih Liu, plaintiff Yu−Hao Liu, plaintiff Te−Hung Tsai, plaintiff Chiang Ling Tsai, plaintiff Mei−Ling Liu Lo, plaintiff I−Wen Liu, plaintiff Tzu−Hao Liu, plaintiff Yen−Po Liu, plaintiff Shiu−Lan Ma, plaintiff Chi−Hua Tang, plaintiff Hao−Hua Tang, plaintiff Hyung Min, plaintiff Young−Sook Min, plaintiff Ji−Young Min, plaintiff Seon−Young Min, plaintiff Se−Young Min, plaintiff Joon Sik Moon, plaintiff Mi Ja Moon, plaintiff Jin Suk Moon, plaintiff Hyun Sun Moon, plaintiff Yong Suk Moon, plaintiff Chi Seung Noh, plaintiff Jung Hee Noh, plaintiff Dong Hyun Noh, plaintiff Hye Rim Noh, plaintiff Min Hyun Noh, plaintiff Chii−Ching Pan, plaintiff Chin−Hua Pan, plaintiff Te−Han Pan, plaintiff Te−Jen Pan, plaintiff Ching−Keun Pan, plaintiff Pei Chun Pan, plaintiff Yi Yang Pan, plaintiff Don Suk Park, plaintiff Yoon Sok Park, plaintiff Jung Woo Park, plaintiff Jae Kwan Park, plaintiff Ae Ryun Park, plaintiff Jang Sun Park, plaintiff Jee Sun Park, plaintiff In Sun Park, plaintiff Seon Og Park, plaintiff Yun Kyung Chung, plaintiff Seung Rye Park, plaintiff Hong Ryong Kim, plaintiff Sun Ae Kim, plaintiff Shin Ae Kim, plaintiff Tae Heup Park, plaintiff Hwa Ja Park, plaintiff Joung June Park, plaintiff Joung Hye Park, plaintiff Young Woo Park, plaintiff Hye Sun Park, plaintiff Hyun Sung Park, plaintiff Hyun Wook Park, plaintiff Raulie D Rodrigo, plaintiff Concepcion V Rodrigo, plaintiff Adrian V Rodrigo, plaintiff Jose Romero, plaintiff Marie Rose Romero, plaintiff Hyuk Hwan Ryoo, plaintiff Ja Hye Ryoo, plaintiff Yung Chan Ryoo, plaintiff Soo Yung Ryoo, plaintiff Ho Jung Seo, plaintiff Hyun Hong Seo, plaintiff Seung Beom Seo, plaintiff Moung Sook Seo, plaintiff Dong Shin Seo, plaintiff Dong Hwan Seo, plaintiff Jeong Hwa Seo, plaintiff Cheng−Hsiung She, plaintiff Hui Wen She, plaintiff Tzu Ming She, plaintiff Heng−Shiang Shih, plaintiff Yao−Meng Shih, plaintiff Kai−Li Shih, plaintiff Myung Seong Shim, plaintiff Chung Hwa Shim, plaintiff Young Hoon Shim, plaintiff Jie Hye Shim, plaintiff Sug Soo Shim, plaintiff Bo Soo Shim, plaintiff Soon Yong Shim, plaintiff Sun Hee Shim, plaintiff Jin Young Shin, plaintiff Chang Yeol Shin, plaintiff Ji Ye Shin, plaintiff Ji Min Shin, plaintiff Moon Soo Shin, plaintiff Kyung Sook Shin, plaintiff Jae Hoon Shin, plaintiff Won Ju Shin, plaintiff Jae Lim Shon, plaintiff Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg, plaintiff Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg, plaintiff Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg, plaintiff Hyun Yong Sim, plaintiff Youn Woo Sim, plaintiff Hyun Jung Sim, plaintiff Jae Hyung Sim, plaintiff Oleg Sitnikov, plaintiff Galsira Sitnikov, plaintiff Maxim Sitnikov, plaintiff Kseniva Sitnikov, plaintiff Stanley S T Siu, plaintiff Ivy H K Siu, plaintiff Vivian Siu, plaintiff In Ju Sohn, plaintiff Ho Joon Sohn, plaintiff Min Jeong Sohn, plaintiff Jee Min Sohn, plaintiff Ching−Fu Su, plaintiff Yu Hua Su, plaintiff Po Hsieh Su, plaintiff Yin Yuan Su, plaintiff Chun−Chen Su, plaintiff Hsueh−Lan Tang, plaintiff Po−Lin Su, plaintiff Po−Wei Su, plaintiff You Ho Suh, plaintiff Mi Ran Suh, plaintiff Dong Kwan Suh, plaintiff Min Sue Suh, plaintiff Yueh−Ching Tao, plaintiff Ru−Ying Tao, plaintiff You−Chen Tao, plaintiff Wan−Hsuan Tao, plaintiff Kwei−You Tao, plaintiff Jorge Alberto Tellez Chaves, plaintiff Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez, plaintiff Marcela Tellez Gomez, plaintiff Laura Tellez Gomez, plaintiff Chien−Hwa Tong, plaintiff Andres D Toro−Betancur, plaintiff Liliana Isaza, plaintiff Susana Toro−Isaza, plaintiff Paulina Toro−Isaza, plaintiff Dario Toro−Quintero, plaintiff Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie, plaintiff Keng−Mu Tsai, plaintiff Yeu−Jiunn Tsai, plaintiff Fan Zee Eric Tsang, plaintiff Hsiu−Linag

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 259 of 290

07/16/2001 07/24/2001
08/06/2001 08/08/2001 08/20/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001

Tseng, plaintiff Wen−Hsi Tseng, plaintiff Huan−Min Tseng, plaintiff Tu Hsiu Tsui, plaintiff Chien Mei Tsui, plaintiff Chia Hsiang Tsui, plaintiff Fang Chi Tsui, plaintiff Fang Ching Tsui, plaintiff Po−En Wang, plaintiff Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang, plaintiff Wei Wang, plaintiff Yuk Lan Wang Wong, plaintiff Ming − Wang, plaintiff Dawei Wang, plaintiff Ho Chien Wei, plaintiff Li−Yu Wei, plaintiff Ping−Lun Wei, plaintiff Chia−Chi Wei, plaintiff Chao−Shih Wu, plaintiff Li−Lin Wu, plaintiff Meng−Ju Wu, plaintiff Chen−Jung Wu, plaintiff Li−Cheng Wu, plaintiff Cheng−Han Wu, plaintiff Cheng−Ju Wu, plaintiff Hsian−Ju Wu, plaintiff Mei−Yueh Wu, plaintiff Kun Kuang Wu, plaintiff Pei−Chen Wu, plaintiff Chia−Chen Wu, plaintiff Yu−Fen Wu, plaintiff Yang − Wu, plaintiff Ching−Chun Wu, plaintiff Chun−Chieh Wu, plaintiff Jen−Tzong Yang, plaintiff Fen−Lan Yang, plaintiff Yu−Ling Yang, plaintiff Man−Chiou Yang, plaintiff Pen−Po Yang, plaintiff Jen−Hsing Yang, plaintiff Hsin−Ti Yang, plaintiff Wen−Rong Yeh, plaintiff Chih Yu Yeh, plaintiff Tsai Chu Yeh, plaintiff Chia Chu Yeh, plaintiff So Hung Yeh, plaintiff Ki Sun Yim, plaintiff Young Sook Yim, plaintiff Chong Hwa Yim, plaintiff Yon Jung Yim, plaintiff Dong Khun Yoo, plaintiff Ha Young Yoo, plaintiff Seung Han Yoo, plaintiff Sang Won Yoo, plaintiff Su Jung Yoo, plaintiff Ho Yang Yoo, plaintiff Young Ae Yoo, plaintiff Sung Yoo, plaintiff Jin Hwan Yoo, plaintiff Hyung Sik Yoon, plaintiff Chan−Kyung Park, plaintiff In−Sub Yoon, plaintiff Min−Sub Yoon, plaintiff In Soo Yoon, plaintiff Kyung Deog Yoon, plaintiff Byung Hee Yoon, plaintiff Ji En Yoon, plaintiff Kwang Hee Yoon, plaintiff Hak−Woo Kim, plaintiff Hak−Sun Kim, plaintiff Seung Rok Yoon, plaintiff Young Jan Yoon, plaintiff Jung Sang Yoon, plaintiff Jae Yeon Yoon, plaintiff Yeo Bok Youn, plaintiff Cin Ok Youn, plaintiff Chul Hwoan Youn, plaintiff Young Hwoan Youn, plaintiff Sheng−Chun Yu, plaintiff Li Chin Yu, plaintiff Kai Li Yu, plaintiff Chih Yi Yu, plaintiff Chao Yuan, plaintiff Ai Guo Han, plaintiff Xiaoying Yuan, plaintiff Suk Shin Yun, plaintiff Hae Sil Yun, plaintiff Yeo Wool Yun, plaintiff Yeo Sang Yun, plaintiff Alabama Almark, plaintiff Alabama Bailey, plaintiff Alabama Coosa Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Dallas Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Denim Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Millry Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Pro Sports, plaintiff Alabama River Run, plaintiff CWHotel Limited, plaintiff Delaware Milford, plaintiff Georgia Almark, plaintiff Louisiana LaSevilla, plaintiff Mississippi Bass, plaintiff Mississippi Magee, plaintiff Mississippi MCT, plaintiff Mississippi Neely, plaintiff Mississippi Tees, plaintiff National Steak Rest, plaintiff NC K−Barb Limited, plaintiff NC Russell−Harvelle, plaintiff PA Loungewear, plaintiff Recap Fund I Limited, plaintiff Recap Fund V Limited, plaintiff RPC Fund I Limited, plaintiff SC Manufacturing, plaintiff TN Lafayette Limited, plaintiff WTC Fund I Limited, plaintiff US Export Fund I, plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang to 9th C/A from Dist. Court jgm fld 5/4/01, ent 5/7/01 [59−2] (cc: Ira J. Kurzban; Marc Van Der Hout; C Daniel Levy; Heather Phillips) Fee: Paid. (weap) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
73 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 10/16/00, 3/21/01 re transcript [43−1] CR: I. Nakamura (app) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
74 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant USA to 9th C/A from Dist. Court Minute Ord fld 6/12/01 [71−1], Jgm fld 5/4/01 &ent 5/7/01 [59−2] (cc: Heather Phillips, Office of Immigration Litigation, U. S. Department of Justice; Alejandro N. Mayorkas, U. S. Attorney; Leon W. Weidman, AUSA; Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger &Tetzeli, P.A.; Marc Van Der Hout; Daniel C. Levy) Fee: Government Waived. (pjap) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
75 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 10/16/00, re transcript [43−1], 3/27/01. CR: I. Nakamura (fvap) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
76 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number appeal [72−1] 01−56266. (cbr) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
77 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number appeal [74−1] 01−56379. (ghap) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
78 RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/16/00, 3/27/01 (Re: [72−1]) CR: Irene Nakamura. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/16/00. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 260 of 290

09/07/2001 03/25/2002 05/03/2002 01/10/2003 07/28/2003 08/11/2003 08/11/2003
08/11/2003 09/19/2003 10/27/2003
11/25/2003 12/01/2003 01/26/2004 04/26/2004
05/10/2004
07/15/2004

TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 3/27/01. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
79 ORDER FROM USCA on 3/15/02,a telphone conf was held before circuit Mediator C. Lewis Ross. 01−56266 &01−56379 (ghap) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
80 ORDER FROM USCA: Plfs' mot for ext of time to file first X−app brief GR. First x−app brief due 6/13/02; 2nd x−app brief due 7/23/02; 3rd x−app brief due 8/22/02; &optional reply brief due 14 days from svc of 3rd brief. (01−56266, 01−56379) (pjap) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
81 CLERK'S record on appeal transmitted to Circuit (01−56266) vols: 5 transcripts: 3 (1 brown folder document #62) (weap) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
Lodged certified copy of 9thCCA judgment, judgment of district court is hereby affirmed, reversed and remanded. (01−56266, 01−56379) (ghap) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
82 RECORD on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals vols: 1 thru 5 transcripts: 3, 1 brown folder. (dlu) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
83 MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge George H. King: The court orders that the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Affirming in part, reversing in part and Remanding is hereby filed and spread upon the minutes of this USDC. Reopening the case . The case is set for status conference on 9/22/03 at 9:30 . CR: N/A (mg) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
84 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA, affirming, reversing and remanding the decision of the District Court [Appeal [72−1] (No. 01−56266) (mg) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
85 MINUTES by Judge George H. King: The parties shall file a joint status report with the court within 21 days hereof. The status conference is continued to 10/27/03 at 1:30 . CR: (None) (mg) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
86 MINUTES: status conference held The Court and counsel confer regarding the USCA mandate affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part the decision of the District Court. Counsel is instructed to file a joint status report within 30 days hereof, addressing the issues posed by the Court to counsel at the hearing by Judge George H. King CR: John Turman (bg) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
87 JOINT MOTION for a 60−day continuance to file the 11/26/03 Joint Status Report pursuant to this court's 10/27/03 minute order ; No hearing date requested; Lodged Order (mg) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
88 ORDER by Judge George H. King granting motion for a 60−day continuance to file the 11/26/03 Joint Status Report pursuant to this court's 10/27/03 minute order [87−1]. The new filing deadline for the Joint Status Report shall be 1/26/04 (mg) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
89 JOINT STATUS REPORT pursuant to this Court's 12/1/03 Order (mg, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
90 MINUTES OF Proceedings before Judge George H. King : Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for a status conference on 5/10/2004 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above case shall appear on date and time specified above. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (bg, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
91 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: PROCEEDINGS: STATUS CONFERENCE. Matter called, parties present. Court conducts stauts conference with counsel regarding status of case. Counsel shall meet and confer as directed by the Court within sixty (60) days hereof and: 1) lodge stipulation for the filing of a proposed amended Consilidated Class Action Complaint or; 2) filed a duly noticed Motion for leave to amend in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: John Turman. (jp, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
92 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King allowing plaintiffs until 8/25/04 to submit the proposed Second Amended Complaint and to file their Motion to Amend Complaint, Motion for Class Certification, and Motion for

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 261 of 290

08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 09/07/2004 09/13/2004 09/14/2004
10/04/2004
10/08/2004
10/22/2004
10/22/2004

Consolidation.(mg, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Consolidation filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
94 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
95 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend complaint filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Lodged consolidated amended complaint. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
96 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Amend 95 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
97 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for class certification filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
98 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 97 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
101 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Amend/Correct 95 , MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 , and response to MOTION to Certify Class 97 , filed by defendant United States of America. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
100 REPLY to response to defendants opposition to plaintiffs MOTION to Amend/Correct 95 ; MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 , MOTION to Certify Class 97 , filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
99 MINUTES OF Proceedings: 93 MOTION to Consolidate Cases, 95 MOTION to Amend Complaint 97 MOTION to Certify Class. (In Chambers). Counsel of Record, are hereby notified that on the courts own motion, hearing on the above matters set 9/20/04, are taken off calendar and reset for 10/13/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Counsel for the parties shall appear on date and time specified aboveCourt Reporter: Not Reported. (bg, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
102 NOTICE OF NON−COMPLAINCE by Government Agents and REQUEST for Hearing on this issue on October 13, 2004 filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
103 MINUTES before Judge George H. King : Plaintiffs NOTICE and REQUEST for Hearing re Non−Complaince by Government Agents. On October 4, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Non−Compliance by Government Agents (the "Notice") and Request for Hearing of the Notic eon October 13, 2004 ("Request"). Plaintiffs are advised that, pursuant to FRCP 7(b)(1), " 1 n application to the Court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be thereof, and shall set forth the relief or other sought...." In light of Rule 7(b)(1), we will not address Plaintiffs allegations contained in the Notice unless Plaintiffs file a notice of motion and motion alleging the same. Plaintiff Request 102 , therefore, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: None. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
104 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order of Mandamus to Address Non−compliance by Government Agents due to their failure to issue I−551 stamps filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership. Motion set for hearing on 11/15/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
105 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Order of Mandamus to Address Non−compliance by Government Agents due to

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 262 of 290

11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004 11/15/2004 12/15/2004
12/15/2004

their failure to issue I−551 stamps 104 filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
106 RECEIPT OF REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 10/27/03, 5/10/04 Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
107 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/27/03. Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
108 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 5/10/04. Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
109 MINUTES: Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation; class certification; and leave to amend complaint. Counsel of record, are hereby notified that on the court's own motion, hearing on the above matters is set for 11/15/05, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for the parties shall appear on the date and time specified above. 93 , 95 , 97 , Honorable George H. King.Court Reporter: None. (bp, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
110 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: Telephone Status Conference. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs MOTION 104 is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court will consider Defendant responses at the 11/15/2004, hearing on Plaintiffs earlier motions, ant will either set appropriate deadlines or order Defendant to fiel a opposition to Plaintiffs Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: None. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
111 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: MOTION by plaintiff to Consolidate 93 , MOTION for Class Certification 97 ; MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint 95 . Matter called, parties present. Court hears oral argument from counsel for the parties. The Court has read and considered the plaintiff motion for leave to amend and for the reasons stated on the record the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file new motion for leave to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Court defers ruling on motion for class certification and for consolidation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: John Turman. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
112 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION for Calss Certification, following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
113 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Calss Certification, following November 15, 2004 Hearing 112 filed by plaintiffs Ja Kyung Gu, Hsien−Ming Hsieh, Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 263 of 290

12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004
12/29/2004 01/10/2005 01/14/2005

Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
114 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION to Consolidate following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
115 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION to Consolidate following November 15, 2004 Hearing 114 filed by plaintiffs. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
116 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
117 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint following November 15, 2004 Hearing 116 filed by plaintiffs. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED re Consolidated Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief submitted by Plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership and Yi Yuan Chiang. (yl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
118 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King that MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint 116 , MOTION for Consolidation 114 and MOTION for Class Certificaion 112 filed 12/15/2004, and currently pending before this Honorable Court, from 1/10/2005 to 1/24/2005 at 09:30 AM. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
119 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs RENEW MOTION to Amend Complaint, MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Response to Motion for Calss Certification following November 15, 2004 Hearing 114 , 116 filed by defendant United States of America. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
120 REPLY to defendant Opposition to Plaintiffs RENEWED MOTIONS TO Amended Complaint 116 andConsolidate Cases 114 and Response to RENEWED MOTION to for Class Certification following November 15, 2004, hearing 112 filed by plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yu Kuei Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 264 of 290

01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 02/17/2005 03/03/2005
03/09/2005 08/29/2005

Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
123 STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding extension of hearing date to 2/14/05 by Judge George H. King : MOTION to Certify Class currently pending 1/24/05, at 9:30 a.m. to Monday, February 14, 2005 upon the Courts consideration and approval 112 . (ca, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
121 RECEIPT OF REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 11/15/04 Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
122 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 11/15/04. Court Reporter: John G. Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
124 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS before Judge George H. King: MOTION to Class Certification 112 , MOTION for Consolidation 114 , MOTION for Leave to Amend 116 . With the concurrence of the Court and counsel, hearing on the above motions are CONTINUED from 2/14/2005 to 3/14/2005 at 09:30 AM., in order to give counsel additional time to try and reach a resolution of the above matters. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (jp, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
125 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Relating to plaintiffs Estoppel Claim filed by plaintiffs Yoon Sik Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Jin Suk Moon, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
126 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS:Telephone Status Conference held before Judge George H. King : Plaintiff's renewed motions for leave to amend complaint, consolidation and class certification filed 12/15/05 re 112 , 114 , and 116 are taken off calender and will be re−calendared for hearing at a later date to be determined at our discretion.Court Reporter: none. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
127 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King : Renewed Motion to Amend 116 is GRANTED; MOTION to Consolidate Cases 114 , is GRANTED. Ahn is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice; and MOTION to amend complaint to clarify their estoppel claim 112 , is GRANTED. At this time, however, we decline to rule on plaintiffs' certification issued as provided for herein, we will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint in conformity with this order and any order approving class certification. Court Reporter: none. **see document for further details** (pbap, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 265 of 290

08/30/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/17/2005 10/18/2005
10/21/2005
11/04/2005

PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED pursuant to the Court's order of 11/15/04 re Proposed Consolidated Amended Complaint; lodged 8/25/04 submitted by plaintiff, Jae Bum Ahn. (bh, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
128 AGREED MOTION for 14 Day Extension of Time to File New Class Definition filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang et al and Defendant United States of America et al. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Leon W Weidman is (213) 894−7819. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Anthony Nicastro is (202) 616−4975. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Ira J Kurzban is (305) 444−3503. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Marc Van Der Hout is (415) 981−3003. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney David B Gardner is (323) 651−5938. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
129 ORDER by Judge George H. King : Granting 128 Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File new joint class definition on or before 10/10/05. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
130 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING Agreed Motion for extension of time submitted by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang et al, and Defendants United States of America received on 10/5/05 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
132 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King : Re Joint Formulation of New Class Definition Filed Pursuant to This Court's 8/29/05, Order. **see document for further details**(pbap, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
131 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King Re: Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint within fourteen days of this order. Defendant shall be deemed served on the date of the filing of the second amended complaint and shall answer or otherwise respond within ten days thereafter.Court Reporter: none. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
133 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant United States of America amending Amended Complaint, 12 ,filed by Plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
134 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint 133 for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed by defendant United States of America.(pbap, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 266 of 290

12/06/2005 12/06/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/14/2005 12/27/2005 01/06/2006 01/30/2006
02/01/2006

136 MOTION for Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer with Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiffs Chang, Wen−Wan etc. Motion set for hearing on 1/9/2006 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
137 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang etc. Motion set for hearing on 1/9/2006 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
135 ORDER by Judge George H. King Setting Scheduling Conference. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/30/2006. Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2006 01:30 PM.(pbap, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
139 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery/Motion Seeking Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery submitted by Defendant United States of America received on 12/6/2005 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(yl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
138 NOTICE of Continuance of MOTION for Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 reset to 1/9/2006, 10:00 a.m. before Judge Wistrich in Courtroom 690. (yb, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
141 RESPONSE to Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's December 14, 2005 Order filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. (pbap, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
140 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Wistrich RE: MOTION for Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 . Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the December 14, 2005 calendaring notice is granted, and the January 9, 2006 hearing date is vacated. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal after the February 13, 2006 scheduling conference. See document for further details. (yb, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
144 Report of the Parties Planning Meeting filed by Plaintiffs Hsien−Ming Hsieh, Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (shb, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
143 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Reschedule Hearing Date filed by Plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 267 of 290

02/06/2006
02/27/2006
02/27/2006 04/04/2006 04/06/2006 04/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/17/2006 12/08/2006

Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. Motion set for hearing on 2/27/2006 at 01:30 PM before Judge George H. King. (shb, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
142 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King. The court is in receipt of plaintiff's unopposed motion to rescheduled the hearing dae. Motion is granted. Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/06 is contined to 2/27/2006 01:30 PM. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above matter shall appear on date and time specified herein.Court Reporter: not reported. (pbap, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
145 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King. Court conducts scheduling conference with counsel, and eners the following scheduling order: (1) All discovery is stayed for 30 days to allow the parties to exhaust any settlement discussion. (2) All Discovery due by 8/15/06. (3) The Parties shall designate their expert witnesses no later than 7/14/06; rebuttal expert witnesses by no later than 7/28/06. (4) The parties shall comply with Local Rule 16−14 by no later than 8/25/06.Court Reporter: n/a. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
Set Deadlines: Discovery cut−off 8/15/2006. Expert Witness List due by 7/14/2006. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
146 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days filed by defendants United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
147 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days submitted by Defendant United States of America received on 4/4/06 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
148 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS held before Judge George H. King GRANTING Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days 146 . All discovery in the action is hereby stayed for thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Court Reporter: not reported. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
150 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al and Defendants United States of America et al. Motion set for hearing on 7/31/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
151 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants Wen−Wan Chang, United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 7/31/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. lodged order(pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
149 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days.(pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
152 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days filed by plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al, and defendants United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 268 of 290

12/11/2006
12/11/2006
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/14/2007 03/14/2007 04/24/2007 04/25/2007
04/26/2007 05/14/2007 05/14/2007 05/25/2007 06/01/2007 06/28/2007
07/13/2007

153 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days submitted by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang and defendants received on 12/8/06 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
154 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days 152 . The discovery dates and designation of expert dates previously issued in this Court's Minute Orders [see Docket Entries 145 and 148 and 149] are hereby extended for 90 days. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
156 JOINT MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days (jag, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
157 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days 156 (jag, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
155 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George H. King, ORDERING Letter submitted by Jointly received on 3/13/07 is to be filed and processed. The filing date is ORDERED to be the date the document was stamped "received but not filed" with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
158 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days 156 ; RE [145, 148 and 149]. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
160 NOTICE of Expert Witness for plaintiffs filed by plaintiffs. (ca ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
159 NOTICE of Second Expert Witness for Plaintiffs filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, CWHotel Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership. (et) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
161 NOTICE re Designation of Expert Witness filed by defendant United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
162 JOINT MOTION for Mediation filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al,and defendant United States of America.Motion set for hearing on 6/4/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
163 NOTICE OF MOTION re JOINT MOTION for Mediation 162 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al, Defendant United States of America. Lodged order(pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
164 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING MOTION for Mediation 162 . *see document for further details* (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
165 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King. Settlement Conference set for 7/12/2007 09:30 AM.Confidential Settlement Statement (IN CAMERA) due by 7/2/2007. (pbap) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
166 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King. Settlement Conference was originally scheduled for 7/12/07 is continued to 7/13/2007 09:30 AM. Counsel shall comply with the filing of the parties' confidential settlement statements as indicated in the order of June 01, 2007.(pbap) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
167 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King. Parties make their appearances. Also present are the authorized representatives on behalf of the government. The court conducts settlement conference with the parties. Plaintiff shall within 130 days hereof, file a status report as directed by the Court. Court Reporter: not reported.(pbap) (Entered: 07/17/2007)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 269 of 290

10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/11/2007
10/25/2007 11/13/2007 02/05/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008
02/06/2008 02/11/2008

168 Plaintiff's MOTION for Emergency Telephonic Status Conference Relating to Settlement filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 10/13/2007)
169 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Telephonic Status Conferencce Relating to Settlement filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 10/13/2007)
170 MINUTES OF EMERGENCY TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge George H. King : The Court conducts telephonic status conference with counsel. Government counsel advised the court that the government (at the agency) is in the process of considering various options that it will present to the plaintiffs next week. Court directs Mr. Molina to cause the agency to have its position (including specific terms) in writing to plaintiffs counsel by the close of business on Friday, October 19, 2007. Court advised Mr. Kurzban that he should still attend the meetings with his clients this weekend, and advise them of, among other things, that representation. If a need were to arise for counsel to have a conference with the court, counsel shall notify the court clerk. Otherwise, we will look forward to the November 12, 2007 status report as previously ordered. (see document for more details)Court Reporter: None.(bh) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
172 Mail Returned addressed to Daniel Levy, Bernard P Wolfsdorf Law Offices, 17383 Sunset Blvd, Suite 120, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 (vh) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
171 REPORT to the Court Pursuant to the Court's Order of July 13, 2007 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
179 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George H. King, ORDERING notice of motion for order to show cause, etc. received on 2/4/2008 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Pursuant to G.O. 07−08 case is designated for electronic filing. (ca) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
173 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
174 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
175 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Subclass filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
176 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
177 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 proposed 3d Am Complaint# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I part 1# 11 Exhibit I part 2# 12 Exhibit I part 3# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P# 20 Exhibit Q# 21 Exhibit R# 22 Exhibit S# 23 Exhibit T# 24 Exhibit U# 25 Exhibit V# 26 Exhibit W# 27 Exhibit X# 28 Exhibit Y# 29 Exhibit Z# 30 Exhibit AA# 31 Exhibit BB# 32 Exhibit CC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
178 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
180 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 , MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 , MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 Motion to Stirke filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/11/2008)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 270 of 290

02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008
02/11/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/18/2008 06/23/2008
07/22/2008

181 Amendment to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR HEARING MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
182 Amendment to MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR HEARING MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
183 Amendment to MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 proposed 3d Am Complaint# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I (part 1)# 11 Exhibit I (part 2)# 12 Exhibit I (part 3)# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P# 20 Exhibit Q# 21 Exhibit R# 22 Exhibit S# 23 Exhibit T# 24 Exhibit U# 25 Exhibit V# 26 Exhibit W# 27 Exhibit X# 28 Exhibit Y# 29 Exhibit Z# 30 Exhibit AA# 31 Exhibit BB# 32 Exhibit CC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
184 OPPOSITION Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Motions filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
185 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 , MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
186 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
187 Mail Returned addressed to Daniel Levy re Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 179 (es) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
188 REPLY in support MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
189 REPLY in support MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 AND MOTION TO CERTIFY A SUBCLASS 175 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
190 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Affidavit of Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. filed by plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
191 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King re: (1) Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Motions, (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 177 , (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass 175 , and (4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed 183 . Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notice of Motions is hereby DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. If Plaintiffs still wish to seek leave to amend, and can do so consistent with Rule 11, they are ORDERED to lodge a new proposed TAC and file a motion to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Plaintiffs' failure to lodge a proposed TAC and file a motion to amend in compliance with this order will be deemed their admission that they do not seek to amend to add claims based on unreasonable delay under the APA, and no further amendments based on this theory will be allowed. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed is hereby DENIED. (ps) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
193 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 8/18/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/22/2008)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 271 of 290

07/22/2008
07/23/2008 07/25/2008 07/28/2008 08/02/2008 08/02/2008 08/05/2008 08/07/2008
08/07/2008

194 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEFENDANT all defendants amending Amended Complaint,,,,,, 133 filed pursuant to this Court's Order dated June 23, 2008,filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I part 1, # 10 Exhibit I part 2, # 11 Exhibit I part 3, # 12 Exhibit I part 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Declaration Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF, # 36 Exhibit GG)(Kurzban, Ira) Modified on 8/6/2008 (ab). *****DOCUMENT STRICKEN************ (Entered: 07/22/2008)
195 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Notice of filing corrected Exhibit S as to Amended Complaint,,, 194 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S (corrected))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
196 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Third Amended Complaint 194 not approved for filing, should have been filed as an exhibit to the Notice of Motion to Amend 193 , and should be filed manually at the Intake Counter since it is an initiating pleading. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
197 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. correcting Amended Complaint,,, 194 (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
198 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Gjon Juncaj on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 08/02/2008)
199 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Certify a Subclass Pursuant to this Court's Order Dated June 23, 2008 Opposition re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 193 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 08/02/2008)
200 ORDER by Judge George H. King the document is stricken and counsel is orderd to file an amended or corrected document by Friday, August 8, 2008 RE: Amended Complaint,,, 194 , Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112), Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112) 196 (ab) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
201 NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Plaintiffs attaching Proposed Third Amended Complaint and Exhibits re Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B), Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B) 200 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, # 2 Exhibit A to Proposed TAC, # 3 Exhibit B to Proposed TAC, # 4 Exhibit C to Proposed TAC, # 5 Exhibit D to Proposed TAC, # 6 Exhibit E to Proposed TAC, # 7 Exhibit F to Proposed TAC, # 8 Exhibit G to Proposed TAC, # 9 Exhibit H to Proposed TAC, # 10 Exhibit I (part 1) to proposed TAC, # 11 Exhibit I (part 2) to proposed TAC, # 12 Exhibit I (part 3) to proposed TAC, # 13 Exhibit I (part 4) to proposed TAC, # 14 Exhibit J to Proposed TAC, # 15 Exhibit K to Proposed TAC, # 16 Exhibit L to Proposed TAC, # 17 Exhibit M to Proposed TAC, # 18 Exhibit N to Proposed TAC, # 19 Exhibit O to Proposed TAC, # 20 Exhibit P to Proposed TAC, # 21 Exhibit Q to Proposed TAC, # 22 Exhibit R to Proposed TAC, # 23 Exhibit S (corrected) to Proposed TAC, # 24 Exhibit T to Proposed TAC, # 25 Exhibit U to Proposed TAC, # 26 Exhibit V to Proposed TAC, # 27 Exhibit W to Proposed TAC, # 28 Exhibit X to Proposed TAC, # 29 Exhibit Y to Proposed TAC, # 30 Exhibit Z to Proposed TAC, # 31 Exhibit AA to Proposed TAC, # 32 Exhibit BB to Proposed TAC, # 33 Exhibit CC to Proposed TAC, # 34 Exhibit DD to Proposed TAC, # 35 Exhibit EE to Proposed TAC, # 36 Exhibit FF to Proposed TAC, # 37 Exhibit GG to Proposed TAC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
202 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Document #200, document was premature to

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 272 of 290

08/11/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008 09/02/2008
10/02/2008
10/02/2008 10/20/2008

indicated that the third amended complaint should be filed by August 8, 2008; Court has to grant leave to file the third amended complaint before it can be e−filed. RE: Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B), Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B) 200 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (ab) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2008: # 1 Notice of Clerical error) (ab). (Entered: 08/07/2008)
203 REPLY in support Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 193 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
204 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Adam Laurence Goldman on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
205 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King: On the Court's own motion, Plaintiff's Renewed MOTION for Leave to AMEND 193 , noticed for hearing on August 18, 2008, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument. The hearing date is VACATED (bh) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
209 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding (1) Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for leave to Amend complaint and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass 193 . Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiffs will have one more opportunity to amend their complaint. If Plaintiffs still wish to seek leave to amend, and can do so consistent with Rule 11, they are ORDERED to lodge a new proposed TAC and file a motion to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Plaintiffs failure to lodge a proposed TAC and file a motion to amend in compliance with this Order will be deemed their admission that they do not seek to amend to add claims based on unreasonable delay under the APA, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), or 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)and no further amendments based on these theories will be allowed. In that event, we will proceed on the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading in this action. Similarly, if Plaintiffs attempt to file another TAC and that complaint is deemed inadequate as well, we will proceed on the SecondAmended Complaint as the operative pleading in this action. Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Subclass is hereby DENIED, without prejudice IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King (ir) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
211 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/3/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed TAC following Order of September 2, 2008, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I PART 1, # 11 Exhibit I PART 2, # 12 Exhibit I PART 3, # 13 Exhibit I PART 4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 Exhibit CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE, # 36 Exhibit FF)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
212 MEMORANDUM in Support of Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO MEMO OF PTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 2 Exhibit Exh B to Memo of pts and authorities)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
213 Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Following This Court's Order of September 2, 2008 Defendant's Opposition re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit Two, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/20/2008)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 273 of 290

10/27/2008 10/31/2008
11/06/2008 11/06/2008
11/10/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008
12/08/2008 12/11/2008

214 REPLY in support of Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
215 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND 211 . On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, noticed for hearing on November 3, 2008, is taken off calendar and will be taken under submission without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated.IT IS SO ORDERED. (bh) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
216 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Plaintiffs' Reneweed Motion for leave to Amend complaint following this Court's 9/2/08 Order 211 is hereby GRANTED, and the Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served on Defendant in the above−captioned action as of this date. Defendant SHALL respond to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days hereof IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
217 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King re: Third Amended Complaint 194 : Because Plaintiffs did not correctly lodge a Third Amended Complaint, the portion of our November 6, 2008, Order 216 where we deemed filed Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint and ordered Defendant to respond within thirty days is VACATED. Counsel for Plaintiffs are ORDERED to manually file a Third Amended Complaint in accordance with General Order 08−02, and to name all plaintiffs and defendants in the caption part of the case within seven(7) days. Defendants SHALL respond to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of it being filed. (bm) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
218 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and for Clarification filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
219 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and for Clarification 218 was not submitted with a proposed order as a separate attachment to the Notice of Motion. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
220 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and clarification filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Order))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
223 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants United States of America amending Second Amended Complaint 133 filed by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, part 1, # 10 Exhibit I, part 2, # 11 Exhibit I, part 3, # 12 Exhibit I, part 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF)(ir) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
225 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 14, 2009 re Amended Complaint,,, 223 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
226 ORDER by Judge George H. King regarding Stipulation to Extend the due date for Defendants to file their response to the Third Amended complaint in this action to 1/14/09 225 is GRANTED. (ir) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 274 of 290

01/08/2009 01/09/2009 01/09/2009 01/13/2009
01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/21/2009
01/21/2009 01/26/2009 01/28/2009 01/29/2009 02/09/2009

227 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims, EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj, # 3 Declaration of Kristie Krebs, # 4 Proposed Order)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
228 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS 227 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
229 REPLY EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS 227 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
230 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Defendant's EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims, and to Remand to USCIS 227 . Defendant has not provided an adequate explanation as to why the present Application cannot be filed as a properly noticed motion, it is hereby DENIED. Defendant may bring a properly noticed motion requesting both a stay of Category 2 claims and/or a remand of Category 3 claims if it so chooses. Accordingly, Defendant will be given an additional seven (7) days to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint by IT IS SO ORDERED Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
231 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 3/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
232 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
233 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part, MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part, MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 2/23/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of the Northern District of California, # 2 Declaration of Kristie Krebs, # 3 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
234 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 223 filed by Defendant United States of America.(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
235 STIPULATION for Hearing re MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
236 NOTICE OF LODGING filed NOTICE OF LODGING PROPOSED ORDER re Stipulation for Hearing, 235 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
237 ORDER by Judge George H. King Resetting Hearing on all Pending Motions for March 2, 2009 in Keeping With Stipulation 235 . It Is Hereby Ordered that the parties' pending motions, to wit, Plaintiffs' MOTION to certify two subclasses 231 and Defendant's MOTION to dismiss, in part, remand in part, and stay in part 233 , shall be heard on 3/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (mg) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
238 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Two Subclasses and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss In Part, Remand In Part, and Stay In Part from March 2, 2009 to March 16, 2009 Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 275 of 290

02/10/2009 03/02/2009 03/02/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/26/2009
03/26/2009
03/31/2009

MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj, # 2 Proposed Order)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
239 ORDER by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs' motion to certify two subclasses 231 and Defendant's motion to dismiss in part, remand in part and stay in part 233 from continued from Monday, 3/2/09 at 9:30 am to Monday, 3/30/09 at 9:30 a.m.. The parties' respective oppositions to each Motion shall be due on or before Monday, 3/2/09, and the parties' respective replies shall be due on or before Monday, 3/9/09. Stipulation is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter the hearing on the Court's calendar. (ir) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
243 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
244 Defendant's Opposition re: MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
245 REPLY in support MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Wen−Wan Chang et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
246 REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
247 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Two Subclasses 231 , and Defendants Motion to Dismiss in Part, Remand in Part, and Stay in Part 233 , noticed for hearing on March 30, 2009, is hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken under submission without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
248 STATUS REPORT REGARDING NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CATEGORY TWO SUBCLASS MEMBERS re MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
249 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Part, Remand in Part, and Stay in Part, (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Two Subclasses 233 by Judge George H. King: Defendant moves to dismiss claims Seven and Eight of Plaintiff Chih Ling Chou under the doctrine of res judicata or on the grounds of mootness. Plaintiff does not object to this dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff Chih Ling Chou's Category 2 claims, claims Seven and Eight, are hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, Defendant's request for a sixty−day stay for all Category 2 claims is hereby GRANTED. The Parties are hereby ORDERED to provide a joint status report regarding the naturalization applications of the Category 2 Plaintiffs within FOURTEEN DAYS after the completion of the

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 276 of 290

04/13/2009 05/04/2009
06/15/2009 06/15/2009

sixty−day stay. We caution Defendant not to request a further stay unless it can show good cause for why the stay should be extended. The sixty−day stay commences as of the date of this order. Accordingly, Defendant's request to dismiss the 15 named Category 3 Plaintiffs not residing in the Central District of California is hereby GRANTED and those 15 named Category 3 Plaintiffs' claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to our consideration of their claims as potential members of any subclass that might be certified. Accordingly, we hereby REMAND all Category 3 claims currently before us to USCIS, with instructions to either grant or deny all Category 3 Plaintiff naturalization applications within SIXTY DAYS. This order does not take effect until the Parties submit the joint brief, as discussed infra, and a ruling is made pursuant to that joint brief. Plaintiffs request that we certify a Category 2 subclass. Because we have already stayed all Category 2 claims, we hereby DENY Plaintiffs' Motion to certify a Category 2 subclass without prejudice pending further proceedings, if any, after expiration of the sixty−day stay. If Plaintiffs' request to certify a Category 2 subclass is not made moot by Defendant's action, Plaintiffs may re−file their motion to certify a Category 2 subclass at that time. Given our order remanding all remaining Category 3 named plaintiffs' cases back to USCIS with instructions to determine their naturalization application within sixty days, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs still wish to certify a Category 3 subclass comprising the remaining 15 Category 3 potential subclass members who do not reside in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs SHALL meet and confer with Defendant, file a joint status report within FOURTEEN DAYS informing the court whether Plaintiffs still seeks to certify a Category 3 subclass given the Court's orders, and if so, whether Defendant opposes such a subclass, given that we are inclined to remand any subclass under the same terms as we have stated we would do with respect to the three Category 3 Plaintiffs who reside in this district. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
251 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
252 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Category 3 Subclass by Judge George H. King granting in part and denying in part 231 Motion to Certify Class Action: For the foregoing reasons, we hereby GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Category 3 Subclass as defined above. However, Plaintiffs' request for an "open" Category 3 subclass is DENIED. Because we have already granted remand with instructions to determine Category 3 Subclass naturalization applications within 60 days of this Order, relief has already been afforded to the Category 3 Subclass. The Category 3 Subclass claim has now been disposed of, and because the named Plaintiffs have been granted all the relief afforded to them as a Category 3 subclass member, they no longer have standing to represent, or an interest in representing, any future subclass members. See Newberg § 3:7 (explaining reasons for denying an "open" class). Pursuant to § 1447(b), any future potential subclass members should bring their Category 3 claim in the district of their residence. Pursuant to this Order, and our March 31, 2009 Order, we hereby REMAND all Category 3 claims for all Category 3 subclass members currently before us to USCIS, with instructions to either grant or deny all Category 3 subclass members' naturalization applications within SIXTY DAYS hereof. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
253 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY TWO PLAINTIFFS AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
254 Joint STIPULATION to AMEND CATEGORY 3 SUBCLASS DESIGNATION OF PLAINTIFFS CHAN−CHIA CHANG, CHAN−HAW CHANG, AND CHUL HWOAN YOUN Amended Complaint,,, 223 , Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,,,,, 252 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 277 of 290

06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/22/2009 06/23/2009 07/06/2009 07/23/2009 09/03/2009 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/06/2009

255 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Status Report and Request to Continue Stay 253 . Proposed order was not submitted as a separate attachment to the Request to Continue Stay. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
256 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER of Deficiencies in Electronically field documents: The document is accepted as filed RE: Status Report 253 (ir) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
257 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re Defendant's Stipulation to Amend the Category 3 subclass designation of Plaintiffs Chan−Chia Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, and Chul Hwoan Youn 254 such that Plaintiffs Chan−Haw Chang, and Chan−Haw Chang are now designated as Category 2 Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Chul Hwoan Youn is removed from the Category 3 subclass. Stipulation is GRANTED. (ir) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
258 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS Order Continuing Stay before Judge George H. King: Pursuant to the Joint Status Report filed by the Parties on June 15, 2009 253 , this case, as it relates to Category 2 Plaintiffs, is hereby STAYED for an additional THIRTY DAYS to ensure completion of the Category 2 interviews. The Parties SHALL submit a joint status report as to the status of the Category 2 interviews by 7/23/2009. (jp) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
259 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY THREE PLAINTIFFS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
260 STATUS REPORT SECOND JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY TWO PLAINTIFFS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
261 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED FOLLOWING COURT ORDERED STAY filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
262 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I−part1, # 11 Exhibit I−part2, # 12 Exhibit I−part3, # 13 Exhibit I−part4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 Exhibit CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE, # 36 Exhibit FF, # 37 Exhibit GG)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
263 MEMORANDUM in Support MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
264 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
265 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS filed by PLAINTIFFS Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 278 of 290

10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009 10/08/2009 10/19/2009 10/19/2009 10/22/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/30/2009

266 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
267 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is incorrect RE: MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (mz) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
268 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS filed by PLAINTIFFS Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
269 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT 264 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
270 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 268 , MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SWORN OF ADAM LAURENCE GOLDMAN)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
271 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) 262 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
272 MINUTES OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON CALENDAR FROM NOVEMBER 2, 2009 TO NOVEMBER 16, 2009 held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: The parties are advised that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of documents relating to USCIS' adjudication of naturalization applications is being continued from November 2, 2009, to November 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (es) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
273 REPLY in support of MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) 262 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
274 REPLY IN SUPPORT MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT 264 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
275 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: taking under submission 262 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; taking under submission 264 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: On the court's own motion, Plaintiff'S Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 262 , and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 264 , noticed for hearing on November 2, 2009, are TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary.

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 279 of 290

11/05/2009 11/05/2009
03/03/2010
03/03/2010 04/05/2010 04/07/2010 04/09/2010

The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (bm) (Entered: 10/30/2009)
276 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Withdraw Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 268 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/16/2009 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
277 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: denying 262 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; dismissing 264 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: Accordingly, we hereby DENY as futile and premature the Motion for Leave to Amend. As we grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, see infra, we need not address the deletion of the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims in the proposed 4AC. Finally, the above− captioned action is hereby STAYED for sixty (60) days hereof. In so staying the action, we express no view as to what constitutes a reasonable period of time for rendering a final determination following a § 1447(a) hearing. We hereby GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the Seventh and Eighth Claims. These claims are hereby DISMISSED as moot. We separately DISMISS without prejudice Sung La Kim's claim for abandoning and otherwise failing to prosecute her naturalization application. Accordingly, we also hereby GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the Ninth Claim. The Ninth claim is hereby DISMISSED as moot. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
278 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I PART 1, # 11 Exhibit I PART 2, # 12 Exhibit I PART 3, # 13 Exhibit I PART 4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Regarding 8 U.S.C. 1421(c))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
279 MEMORANDUM in Support of Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
280 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
281 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Accept As Timely A Late−Filed Brief and, EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from April 19, 2010 to April 26, 2010 Re: MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 280 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sworn of Adam Laurence Goldman, # 2 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
282 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King granting 281 Ex Parte Application for Leave; granting 281 Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Accept as Timely a Late−Filed Brief, or, Alternatively, to Adjourn the Hearing Date for One Week: Defendant the United States of America

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 280 of 290

04/19/2010 04/21/2010 04/26/2010 04/29/2010 05/03/2010 05/04/2010
05/11/2010

("Government") filed its Opposition (Dkt. No. 280) to Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. No. 278) on April 5, 2010. Counsel has represented to us that he inadvertently overlooked the change to Local Rule 7−9, which now requires that any opposition to a motion be filed no later than twenty−one (21) days prior to the hearing on the motion. (Goldman Decl. 3−5). The current hearing date is Monday April 19, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., so the Opposition was untimely under the new version of Local Rule 7−9, which went into effect on January 1, 2010. Nevertheless, given the Government's inadvertence, we hereby DEEM the Opposition timely as filed. Any Reply SHALL be filed no later than April 19, 2010. The hearing set for Monday April 19, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., is CONTINUED to Monday May 3, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. (bm) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
283 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Status Report, # 2 Exhibit Amended Exhibit W)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
284 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ira J Kurzban counsel for Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Changing Address to 634 S. Spring St. #714 Los Angeles, CA 90014. Adding Stacy Eva Tolchin as attorney as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Ira J. Kurzban (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
285 NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend [DE 278] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority Agarwal v. Napolitano)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
286 RESPONSE filed by Defendant United States of Americato Notice (Other) 285 of supplemental authority in support of second motion to amend complaint for fourth occasion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
287 MINUTES: MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 278 ; Matter called. Parties are present. The Court hears argument of counsel regarding plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend. Motion for leave to amend is granted. The Court will issue further order IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
288 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to Amend Complaint for a Fourth Occasion 278 . The Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL file a Fourth Amended Complaint within seven (7) days hereof. The Government SHALL file any motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the 4AC. The motion to dismiss SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages in length. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs SHALL file any Opposition, which SHALL NOT exceed twenty (20) pages in length. Within seven (7) days of the filing of the Opposition, Defendant SHALL file any Reply, which SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages in length. Following counsel's submission of the 4AC, Plaintiffs may file any motion for class certification. We express no judgment as to what effect, if any, the filing and pendency of such a motion would have on any Section 1421(c) claims brought by out−of−district Category 6 Plaintiffs. As stated during the hearing on the Motion, we do not purport to rule on any such motions for classcertification at this time (See document for further details) IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
289 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants United States of America amending Third Amended Complaint, 223 ,filed by plaintiffs Albrecht Buhler, Tsung−Wei Chang, Wei−Ting Chang, Wen−Wan Chang, Hui−Yu Chuang, Yu−Te Chuang, Chi−Fang Hsu, Yu−Fang Hsu, Bi Chen Huang, Ta−Lun Huang, Ta−You Huang, Kyu Hur, Kyung Hwa Hur, Myung Ok Hur, Yool Hur, Choong Nam Kim, Sung Duck Kong, Chin−Hsin Kuo, Ko−Ting Lin, Szu−Yin Lin, Chun−Chen Su,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 281 of 290

05/25/2010
05/27/2010 06/08/2010 06/15/2010 06/21/2010 06/28/2010 07/07/2010 07/21/2010
08/11/2010 08/16/2010

Po−Lin Su, Po−Wei Su, Yuk Lan Wang Wong. (bm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/13/2010: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I Pt. 1, # 10 Exhibit I Pt. 2, # 11 Exhibit I Pt. 3, # 12 Exhibit I Pt. 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y) (bm). (Entered: 05/12/2010)
290 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Adam Laurence Goldman, # 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 3 Exhibit One, # 4 Exhibit Two, # 5 Exhibit Three, # 6 Exhibit Four, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
291 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum and Points of Authority In Support of Motion to Certify Subclass)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
292 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 290 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
293 REPLY In Support MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 290 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three, # 4 Exhibit Four, # 5 Exhibit Five)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
294 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass 291 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
295 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass 291 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
296 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR held before Judge George H. King: On the Court's own motion, Defendant's motion to dismiss cause of action Seven (Doc # 290) and Plaintiff's motion for Subclass Certification (Doc. # 291) currently scheduled for Monday, July 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m are hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. No appearance is necessary. (bm) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
297 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King granting 290 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim; denying 291 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification for 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) Subclass: Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the Motion to Dismiss and DENY the Motion for Class Certification as moot. The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for Wednesday August 18, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. The Parties SHALL be prepared to discuss possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
298 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/13/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum and Points of Authority in Support of Motions, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Text of S.3702)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
299 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Vacating Status Conference by Judge George H. King: The status conference, currently scheduled for August 18, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and VACATED pending our

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 282 of 290

08/24/2010 08/25/2010
08/25/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010 08/30/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010

decision on Plaintiffs' motion to stay, which has been noticed for hearing on September 13, 2010. (bm) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
300 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) **STRICKEN PURSUANT TO RESPONSE BY THE COURT filed 8/26/10** Modified on 8/26/2010 (ir). (Entered: 08/24/2010)
301 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Notice of Motion 300 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Hearing date is set for a different hearing date than original motion (doc. 298, efiled on 8/11/10). Effective 1/1/10, Local Rule 6−1 requires that notice of motion/application for hearing be filed with the Clerk not later than 28 days before the date set for hearing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
302 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims as Final from September 13, 2010 to September 20, 2010 Re: Notice of Motion,, 300 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Continue Hearing)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
303 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER of Deficiencies in Electronically filed documents: Amended Notice of Motion 300 is stricken from the record. (ir) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
304 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING LEGISLATION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY DISMISSAL OF NATURALIZATION CLAIMS UNDER F.R.C.P. 54(b) TO SEPT. 20, 2010 by Judge George H. King, re Stipulation 302 : Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Joint Stipulation to move the date of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims as Final to September 20, 2010 is granted. The hearing on the motions will be re−set to September 20, 2010 at 9:30AM, unless otherwise submitted without oral argument. (bm) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
305 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three, # 4 Exhibit Four, # 5 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
306 REPLY in support of MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Letter from Stephen Yale−Loehr to Ira Kurzban (Sept. 7, 2010), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: Letter from Linda Maynor and Russell Cartwright to Ira Kurzban (Sept. 7, 2010))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
307 NOTICE of Decision: Supplemental Authority −− Jose Gonzalez v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 2:09−cv−03426−WJM−MF (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2010) filed by Defendant United States of America. In Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For A Stay And Entry Of A Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 283 of 290

09/15/2010
09/17/2010 09/17/2010 09/21/2010 09/28/2010
10/13/2010 10/17/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 12/01/2010
12/01/2010

(Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
308 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge George H. King: On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Legislation and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims 298 noticed for hearing on September 20, 2010, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78;Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (lw) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
309 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Appeal of Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Certify,,,, 297 (Appeal fee of $455 receipt number 0973−7533769 paid.) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Order Being Appealed, # 2 Supplement Service List)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
310 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 . (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
311 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 10−56477, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 as to Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (lr) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
338 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang, CCA # 10−56477. The district court's order challenged in this appeal did not dispose of the action as to all claims and all parties. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42−1. [See Document for further information] Order received in this district on 6/6/11. (car) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
312 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: 5/3/2010; Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Ricker; Court of Appeals Case Number: 10−56477; Re: 309 (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
313 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on May 3, 2010; 9:35 a.m. Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey, mary.usdc@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/7/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/17/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/15/2011. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 10/17/2010)
314 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings May 3, 2010; 9:35 a.m. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
315 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang ; Court of Appeals Case Number: 10−56477. (dmap) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
316 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay and to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs' request for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request to certify the Courts July 21, 2010 Order, (Dkt. No. 297), dismissing Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED.The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for January 31, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report by January 24, 2010 discussing possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. denying 298 Motion to Stay Case. (lw) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
317 AMENDED MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay and to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs request for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs request to certify the Courts July 21, 2010 Order, (Dkt. No. 297),

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 284 of 290

12/22/2010 12/28/2010 12/28/2010 01/05/2011 01/19/2011
01/24/2011 01/31/2011
03/15/2011 03/22/2011

dismissing Plaintiffs seventh cause of action pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED. The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for JANUARY 31, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report by JANUARY 24, 2011 discussing possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. re: Minutes in chambers order 316 . (lw) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
318 REQUEST TO Substitute attorney Kimberly Wiggans in place of attorney Adam Goldman filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiggans, Kimberly) *** DOCUMENT MODIFIED PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 12−28−10, DOC #320 *** Modified on 12/28/2010 (lw). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
319 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Request to Substitute Attorney 318 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests−Substitute Attorney (G−01). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
320 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court by Beatrice Herrera, Clerk to Judge King: The document is accepted as filed. THE RECORD SHALL REFLECT THE CORRECT DOCUMENT ATTACHED SHOULD BE REQUEST AND NOT MOTION. RE: Request to Substitute attorney Kimberly Wiggans in place of attorney Adam Goldman 318 (lw) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
321 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by Judge George H. King granting 318 Request to Substitute Attorney. The Court hereby orders that the request of: Janet Napolitano, Secretary, DHS, Defendant, to substitute Kimberly Wiggans as attorney of record in place and stead of Adam Goldman. (bm) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
322 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang, CCA # 10−56477. Order received in this district on 1/19/11. Appellee's motion to strike appellants' November 5, 2010 filing is denied. The district court's order challenged in this appeal did not dispose of the action as to all claims and all parties and, therefore, is not a final order reviewable on appeal. Further, appellants failed to obtain a 54(b) certification from the district court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (cbr) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
323 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR TRIAL PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF DEC. 1, 2010 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
325 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King: The Court conducted a scheduling conference with counsel. All Parties agree that the only remaining claim is equitable estoppel. Because there are outstanding discovery issues and Defendant's counsel is new to the case, the Parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer and, if necessary, file any motions to compel by April 1, 2011. By this date, the Parties SHALL also file a joint status report advising the Court whether any motions to compel have been filed. If any such motions have been filed, we will await their resolution by the Magistrate Judge, at which time the Parties SHALL file a further joint status report advising the Court of the Magistrate Judge's ruling. If no motions to compel are filed, we will deem discovery to be complete and will issue such other orders as appropriate. Court Reporter: N/A. (bm) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
328 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 309 CCA # 10−56477. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mandate received in this district on 3/15/2011. (dmap) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
329 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Scheduling Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,, 325 or, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 285 of 290

03/23/2011
03/23/2011 03/29/2011
04/01/2011
04/01/2011 04/05/2011 05/11/2011 05/16/2011 06/10/2011 06/22/2011

Clarifying the January 31, 2011 order filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Draft Stipulation)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
330 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Ex Parte Application 329 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Proposed order was not submitted as a separate, additional attachment to the Ex Parte Application. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
331 OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Declaration of Ira J. Kurzban, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: March 4, 2011 e−mail from Kimberly Wiggans to Ira Kurzban)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
332 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration, or, in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court's January 31, 2011 Order by Judge George H. King: This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Ex Parte Application. Given the lengthy and complicated procedural history of this case, it is understandable if the discovery completion date hasbeen less than clear. At this time, we choose to allow Plaintiffs to present their motion to compel to the Magistrate Judge. We deem all discovery to be complete with the exception of any discovery that the Magistrate Judge may order pursuant to the motion to compel. Therefore, Defendant's Application is DENIED.RE: 329 Ex Parte Application for Order (lw) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
333 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 6/20/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Joint Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A−D, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits E−J, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits K−M, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit N, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit O, # 8 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibits 1−18, # 9 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 19)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
334 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 31, 2011 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
335 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court by Beatrice Herrera, Clerk to Judge King: The document is accepted as filed. COURT HAS ISSUED ORDER REGARDING THE EX PARTE APPLICATION. RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Scheduling Conference 329 (lw) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
336 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from June 20, 2011 to July 25, 2011 Re: MOTION to Compel Discovery 333 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
337 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL TO JULY 25, 2011, 336 by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel to July 25, 2011. Good cause being shown, said stipulation is GRANTED. (mz) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
339 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Geoffrey Forney on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
340 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying 333 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal in a procedurally proper fashion and on the basis of a more adequate record, including full compliance with Local Rule 37. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered:

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 286 of 290

07/22/2011 07/26/2011
08/30/2011
08/30/2011 09/28/2011 10/04/2011
11/03/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 12/07/2011 12/07/2011

06/23/2011)
341 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
342 MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order re: Parties Joint Status Report 34 : We have received the Parties July 22, 2011 joint status report, informing the Court that Judge Wistrich denied without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, that Plaintiffs have proposed to comply with Local Rule 37−1 by way of a conference during the week of August 1, 2011, and that if all discovery matters are not resolved within the next 15 days, Plaintiffs will refile their motion... as soon as possible thereafter. (Dkt. No. 341, at 3). To ensure that this process proceeds expeditiously, we ORDER the Parties to file any Motion to Compel by no later than August 30, 2011. By the same date, the Parties SHALL provide the Court with a joint status report informing the Court whether any Motion to Compel has been filed. Furthermore, within forty−eight (48) hours of any ruling by Judge Wistrich on such Motion, the Parties SHALL file a joint status report with the Court so indicating. At that time, we will issue such other orders as may be appropriate IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
343 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 12/12/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Joint Stipulation Regarding Discovery Requests in Dispute, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A to C, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit D part 1 of 2, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit D part 2 of 2, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits E to H, # 7 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 17, # 8 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 18)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
344 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF JULY 26, 2011 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
345 STATUS REPORT Related to Proposed Rulemaking filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Federal Register Notice)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
346 MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order Directing Filing of Joint Status Report: We have received the Parties September 28, 2011 joint status report, informing the Court that the Department of Homeland Security published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a proposed regulation that may apply to and affect the Parties in this case 345 . Accordingly, the Parties are directed to meet and confer and, within thirty (30) days hereof, file a joint status report concerning the potential effect of such regulation, should it become a final rule, on this action IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
347 STATUS REPORT (Joint) Pursuant to Court Order of October 4, 2011 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
348 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 (Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
349 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum) filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
350 APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from 12/12/11 to 1/30/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
351 Amended APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from 12/12/11 to 02/27/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 2/27/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2011)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 287 of 290

12/08/2011 12/27/2011 02/22/2012 02/23/2012 03/27/2012
04/09/2012 05/09/2012 05/23/2012
06/01/2012
06/15/2012 07/30/2012 08/13/2012

352 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 351 Application to Continue. Good cause exists to grant this request. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is reset for February 27, 2012. (mz) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
353 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kimberly Helvey counsel for Defendant United States of America. Changing attorney name to Kimberly Helvey. Changing e−mail to Kimberly.E.Helvey@usdoj.gov. Filed by Defendant United States of America (Helvey, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
354 Joint APPLICATION to Continue hearing from 2/27/12 to 6/25/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 6/25/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
355 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 . The hearing originally scheduled has been rescheduled: re MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 .( Discovery Hearing set for 6/25/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.) (yb) Modified on 2/23/2012 (yb). (Entered: 02/23/2012)
356 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying without prejudice to its renewal after the parties' settlement negotiations have run their course. 343 Motion to Compel. The parties have reported to the court that settlement negotiations are ongoing. Counsel are directed to file a joint report on the status of their settlement negotiations every 30 days, commencing April 9, 2012. (yb) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
357 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
358 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
359 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge George H. King: COUNSEL ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for a telephonic status conference on JUNE 1, 2012 AT 10:30 A.M. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above case shall appear by telephone. Plaintiff is directed to initiate the conference call by making sure all parties are on the line prior to contacting the Court at the following number: (213) 894−5766. (bm) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
360 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge George H. King: Court conducts telephonic status conference with counsel regarding status of settlement discussions. Counsel represent that they are optimistic that there will be a settlement, pending Homeland Security approval of the latest iteration of the agreement. Court directs counsel to file a joint status report once Homeland Security has acted, but in no event later than June 15, 2012. If the settlement is approved by Homeland Security, counsel shall set forth the steps that would have to be taken before final settlement approval and a proposed timetable therefor. If Homeland Security has not yet acted by June 15, 2012, defendant's counsel shall set forth an estimate of the time needed for Homeland Security to act. The court will issue such other orders as may be appropriate after reviewing the status report. Court Reporter: N/A. (bm) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
361 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
362 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Helvey, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
363 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Settlement Agreement))(Forney, Geoffrey) ***CORRECTED TO READ THE SAME AS DOCUMENT FILED*** Modified on 8/17/2012 (lw). (Entered: 08/13/2012)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 288 of 290

08/14/2012 08/14/2012
08/15/2012
08/17/2012 08/17/2012 08/21/2012 08/24/2012 09/21/2012 09/24/2012 09/27/2012

364 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of : Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness Hearing, and a Stay of Proceedings filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/17/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
365 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Status Report 363 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Miscellaneous Filings (Non−Motion)−Status Report. Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry text does not match caption of the attached document. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
366 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Attachment 1: Proposed Order 364 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): proposed order does not have blank lines for the court to insert date and time for fairness hearing and date order signed. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
367 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court: The document is accepted as filed. RE: Joint Status Report 363 (lw) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
368 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TOFILER OF DEFICIENCIES INELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court: The document is accepted as filed. RE: Attachment #1; Proposed Order to Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of : Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness Hearing, and a Stay of Proceedings 364 (lw) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
369 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Motion Hearing Date and Request Permission for Defendants Counsel to Appear Telephonically filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
370 ORDER by Judge George H. King: Upon review of the parties' Stipulation 369 , the Court hereby reschedules consideration of their pending Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness hearing and a Stay of proceedings 364 for 9/24/2012 at 09:30 AM. Should a hearing be necessary, Defendant's counsel may appear through local counsel from the U.S. Attorney's office or defendant may waive its appearance. No telephonic hearings. (ir) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
371 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Glenn M Girdharry on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
372 MINUTES OF MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; 364 Hearing held before Judge George H. King: Matter called. Counsel for the parties are present. Court hears from counsel. Having heard from counsel, Court directs the parties to make the necessary changes to the settlement agreement and submit the notice to the Court for approval by no later than September 28, 2012. Court to issue further order. Court Reporter: Mary riordan Rickey. (bm) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
373 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement by Judge George H. King granting 364 Motion for Settlement: After considering all the relevant factors and the special nature of this case, we conclude that the proposed settlement is within the range of approvable settlements. Accordingly, the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED. The final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. In light of the foregoing, we conditionally CERTIFY the proposed class for

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 289 of 290

09/28/2012 10/05/2012 10/11/2012
01/10/2013
01/11/2013
01/11/2013 01/14/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 02/13/2013

purposes of settlement. Further, the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
374 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
375 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
376 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re: Revised Settlement Agreement by Judge George H. King: On October 5, 2012, the Parties submitted a revised Settlement Agreement pursuant to our September 24, 2012 hearing. Having reviewed the revised Settlement Agreement, we conclude that the Parties have adequately addressed our concerns. We therefore direct the Parties to notify class members of the proposed settlement as set forth in the revised Settlement Agreement. As stated in our September 27, 2012 Order, [Dkt. No. 373], the final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (bm) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
377 AFFIDAVIT in contemplation of the Jan. 14, 2013 Fairness Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Chan−Chia Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, Chan−Wei Chang, Chan−Zue Chang, Chia−How Chang, Chiao−Ying Chang, Ching−Farn Chang, Hsu−Yi Chang, Hsueh−Mei Chang (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
378 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on September 24, 2012; a.m. session. Court Reporter Mary R. Rickey, Mary.USDC@Yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/1/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/11/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/11/2013. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
379 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings September 24, 2012; a.m. session re Transcript 378 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Rickey, Mary R.) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/11/2013)
380 MINUTES OF Hearing re Final Approval of Class Settlement held before Judge George H. King: Counsel shall submit further briefing as prescribed on the record within seven (7) days hereof. Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey. (rne) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
381 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Ira J. Kurzban filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
382 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement re Status Conference 380 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
383 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT by Judge George H. King: The Court, after review of the entire record, and after considering all papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the Agreement, including the fairness hearing held on January 14, 2013, has determined that the settlement should be APPROVED. 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, and all actions within this litigation and over the parties to the Agreement, including all members of the class on the one hand, and defendant the United States of America on the other. 2. The Court hereby finally APPROVES and CONFIRMS the settlement set forth in the Agreement and finds that said settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The notice given to the class members set forth in the Agreement, see Doc. 375−2, provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement, toall persons entitled to such

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 02/20/2013 02:56 PM PST 290 of 290

02/15/2013

notice. 4. Pursuant to the Agreement, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to review any pattern or practice violation by Defendant of Plaintiffs' rights under the Agreement. 5. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiffs shall within five (5) days of this Order, lodge with the Court their Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions, Doc. 375−1. (ir) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
384 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 3/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/15/2013)

 
 Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 1 of 288
(AJWx),CLOSED,CONSOLDS,REOPENED,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99−cv−10518−GHK−AJW

Kyung Sook Ahn, et al v. USA, et al Assigned to: Judge George H. King Referred to: Discovery Andrew J. Wistrich Demand: $0 Case in other court: 9th CCA, 10−56477 Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff Kyung Sook Ahn
Plaintiff Jae Bum Ahn

Date Filed: 10/12/1999 Date Terminated: 03/07/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
represented by Ira J Kurzban Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt PA 2650 SW 27th Avenue Suite 200 Miami, FL 33133 305−444−0060 Fax: 305−444−3503 Email: ira@kkwtlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout Van Der Hout & Brigagliano and Nightingale 180 Sutter Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94123 515−981−3000 Email: mv@vblaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy Bernard P Wolfsdorf Law Offices 17383 Sunset Blvd Suite 120 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 310−573−4242 TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin 634 South Spring Street Suite 714 Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−622−7450 Fax: 213−622−7233 Email: Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 2 of 288

Plaintiff Soo Yeon Ahn
Plaintiff Tae Eun Ahn
Plaintiff Igor S Babiev TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 3 of 288

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lev I Babiev TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff No Woong Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Syun Hee Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Eun Kyu Bak

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 4 of 288

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyun Jung Bak

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Ho Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Sun Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 5 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Young Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jun Bum Bang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Albrecht Buhler

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 6 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gillian Webb Buhler

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Katriona Gillian Katriona Gillian Kirkpatrick Buhler TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Jo Cha

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 7 of 288

Plaintiff Nak Soon Cha
Plaintiff Sun Yi Cha
Plaintiff Yoon Yi Cha
Plaintiff Chee Cheung Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 8 of 288

Plaintiff Pik Chiu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Man Kit Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Man Zse Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 9 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Man Chi Chan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Yu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin−Fong Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 10 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen−Li Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Che−Pei Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ching−Farn Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 11 of 288

Plaintiff Hsueh−Mei Chang
Plaintiff Chan−Chia Chang
Plaintiff Chan−Haw Chang

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 12 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chan−Zue Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chan−Wei Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Chen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 13 of 288

Ching−Wen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Cheng Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Yueh Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 14 of 288

Yen−Hui Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Fu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sheng−Fu Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Hoon Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 15 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hye Yeon Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jae Young Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 16 of 288

Jae Woo Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jae Bum Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ruey Rong Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 17 of 288

Plaintiff Yu−Fang Hsu
Plaintiff Wei−Ting Chang
Plaintiff Tsung−Wei Chang
Plaintiff Ta−Peng Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 18 of 288

Plaintiff Hsu−Yi Chang
Plaintiff Chia−How Chang
Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 19 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner David Gardner Law Offices 6300 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, CA 90048 323−653−4514 Fax: 323−651−5938 Email: david@americanimmigrationlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Tsung−Ming Chang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chiao−Ying Chang

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 20 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen−Pin Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiang−Ping Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tun−Wei Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 21 of 288

Plaintiff Yu−Hui Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yi−Ming Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shu−Hua Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yao−Wen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 22 of 288

Plaintiff Yao−Jen Chang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yong Sik Chang
Plaintiff Mi Ok Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 23 of 288

Plaintiff Min Ah Chang
Plaintiff Min Il Chang
Plaintiff Yu−Tai Chang

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 24 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Chieh Hsueh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiao−Han Hsueh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chi−Jen Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 25 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chao Fang Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chien Chuan Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mu Hua Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 26 of 288

Plaintiff Guo−Chueng Chen
Plaintiff Yueh−Ying Chen
Plaintiff Chia−Ling Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 27 of 288

Plaintiff Hsiang−Fu Chen
Plaintiff Chih Hui Chen
Plaintiff Yu−Tai Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 28 of 288

Plaintiff Yu−Hung Chen
Plaintiff Hui−Hsiung Chen
Plaintiff Chiung−Chu Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 29 of 288

Plaintiff Po−Lin Chen
Plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chen
Plaintiff Hsin−I Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 30 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hung−Liang Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ling−Ching Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Yu Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 31 of 288

Plaintiff Kuen−Yan Chen
Plaintiff Hsiu−Hua Chen
Plaintiff Jun−Chiu Chen

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 32 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wu−Cheng Chen

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Liang−Chung Chen

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Siao−Shee Chao

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 33 of 288

Plaintiff I−Fan Chen
Plaintiff Pao−Chu Chen
Plaintiff Wei Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 34 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hisn−Yun Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shih Hwa Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yun−Ping Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 35 of 288

Li−Hua Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Shin Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Ju Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shu−Hua Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 36 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chiu−Liang Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yi−Fan Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff I−Chieh Cheng

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 37 of 288

Plaintiff Po−Cheng Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yueh−Mei Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yuan−Kai Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 38 of 288

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Yuan Chiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung Hsiung Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Yin Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 39 of 288

Cheng−Tai Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Feng I Chien TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ching−Chi Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hsueh−Hui Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 40 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen−Chih Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen−Ling Chiu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Seok Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 41 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Young Ja Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Woo Seok Choe

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Sub Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 42 of 288

Plaintiff Kwang Ae Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Han Wool Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Daseolhan Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Heung Kohl Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 43 of 288

Plaintiff Bong Ok Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jae Hyuck Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jeong Hwan Choi

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 44 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sook Ja Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Min Koo Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Song Hak Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 45 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Ran Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Suk Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Ah Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Soo Bong Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 46 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Hee Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyung Jin Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Woo Hyun Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 47 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hee Jin Choi

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Kil Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bog−Hi Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 48 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Bum Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung−Hi Choi TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Wen Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 49 of 288

Pi−Yun Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung−Chun Chou TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Wei Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 50 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chih−Ling Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jin−Chen Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Shu−Fang Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 51 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wei−Chun Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu−Shan Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Wei−Jen Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 52 of 288

Plaintiff Yu−Lin Chou
Plaintiff Wei Yen
Plaintiff Mao−Chuan Chou
Plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chou

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 53 of 288

Plaintiff Ta−Ching Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Jung Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tzu−Hsin Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 54 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei−ju Chuang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu−Te Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Mei−Lin Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 55 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hui−Tsung Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hui−Yu Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kai−Hung Chuang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin Dong Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 56 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hee Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Won Sik Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Sik Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 57 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Bernardo V Cruz TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Natividad M Cruz TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eugene Espinueva C TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 58 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fe Helengrace R Espinueva

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Edward Rae R Espinueva

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Evelyn R Espinueva TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 59 of 288

Elissa Nell R Espinueva TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Tim Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chiu Ling Fung Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi Leung Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 60 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Po Man Fung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hong−Mei Gong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Fuyu Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 61 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bin Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yuan Wang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 62 of 288

Plaintiff Tatyana Gorilovskaia TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Lev Gorilovskiy TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Anna Gorilovskaia TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mi Jin Gu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 63 of 288

Plaintiff Ja Kyung Gu
Plaintiff Bon Young Gu
Plaintiff Bon Min Gu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 64 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Woo Young Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chae Ok Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Young Jun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 65 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Hack Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chung Won Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Suck Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kyung Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 66 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Sook Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Myong Soo Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jee Min Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 67 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Koo Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung He Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Ki Hong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 68 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Ming Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Mei Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chiao−Yun Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 69 of 288

Mu−Jou Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Te Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Shu Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Chieh Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 70 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Ju Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Chin Hsiao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chou−Yi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 71 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hoa−Chao Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi−Jun Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Jun Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 72 of 288

Plaintiff Hsi−Chieh Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hsien−Ming Hsieh
Plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh
Plaintiff

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 73 of 288

Pei−Chen Hsieh

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Pei−Shan Hsieh

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiu Chin Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 74 of 288

Plaintiff Jui−Hsin Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hui Jou Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tsung−Yi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Pang−Chi Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 75 of 288

Plaintiff Hui Ling Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chen Hsieh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 76 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shih Chieh Hsu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shu Chen Hsu Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chi−Fang Hsu

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 77 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bi Chen Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Chieh Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ta−Lun Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ta−You Huang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 78 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ta−Wei Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Chang Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lai−Hao Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 79 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fu−Nan Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fu−Kai Huang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Myung Ok Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 80 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yool Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kyung Hwa Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kyu Hur

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 81 of 288

Ya Jin Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Hyeok Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi−Yen Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Chen Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 82 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Ju Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Hung Jiang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Sung Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 83 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Nim Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoo Jin Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Suk Jo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 84 of 288

Plaintiff Yu Wen Juan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chuan−Ching Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ching−Jen Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu−Ling Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 85 of 288

Plaintiff Yu−Chia Kai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chang−Sik Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hee Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 86 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yo Han Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ik Hee Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun Tae Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 87 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shin Ho Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Na Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeoung Soo Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yang Sook Kang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 88 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien Kuei Kao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu Lien Liang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
An Kuo Kao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 89 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chae Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwa Shin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soo Jeong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 90 of 288

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Geon Tae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min Seong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chan Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 91 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hak Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ki Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jun Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 92 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Hack Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ok Hyeun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Nam Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 93 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Kwan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Choong Nam Kim

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Myung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 94 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Sook Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 95 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Seok Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hae Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Jung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 96 of 288

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Kyung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Han Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Ja Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 97 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Jeong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Chan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwan Kyum Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 98 of 288

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwee Sik Jang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
June Gil Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
June Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 99 of 288

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jong Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Mo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 100 of 288

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeon Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joong Heon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keun Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 101 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Kyung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seong Ik Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 102 of 288

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwang Won Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Duk Soo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Hoon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 103 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwon Gi Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 104 of 288

Plaintiff
Young Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Hwan Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 105 of 288

Plaintiff Kyung Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yeon Joo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hae Jin Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 106 of 288

Plaintiff Won Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Joong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Myong Soon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 107 of 288

Plaintiff Hyung Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wan Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Sook Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 108 of 288

Plaintiff Hyun Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sae Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 109 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
See Ouk Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 110 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sook Kim Baek TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sae Hoon Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jee Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 111 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soon Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Heung Joo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Kyu Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 112 of 288

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae Hyun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ssang Gi Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hee Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 113 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Da Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
A Young Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dae Woong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 114 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tae−Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Seung Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 115 of 288

Plaintiff Ji Ho Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mee Sun Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sung Hyun Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 116 of 288

Sung Hoon Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Lin Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih−Chieh Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih−Hsiang Ko TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 117 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sung Duck Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hye Ra Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Hyun Jung Kong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 118 of 288

Plaintiff Min Suk Kong
Plaintiff Chin−Hsin Kuo
Plaintiff Mei−Miao Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 119 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien−Ting Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Hui Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Yang Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 120 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yo−tzu Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu Wei Kuo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Jae Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 121 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You Young Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Jeong Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyeong Jin Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 122 of 288

Song Joo Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoeun Hwa Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hyeng Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Sung Kwon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 123 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jen−Tien Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
I−Chun Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yeh−Chien Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 124 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yu Kuei Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yen Chih Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Chen Ju Lai

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 125 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ying−Ming Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Hsiu Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun Wei Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 126 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yen Ju Lai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sai Yue Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wai Yee Lau Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 127 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hiu Yan Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
King Yin Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
King Yip Lau TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 128 of 288

Chil Ok Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Je Ho Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Gyu Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 129 of 288

Plaintiff Sang Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sang Heui Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Dae Yeon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 130 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Ja Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Won Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyo Won Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 131 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eun−Kyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wook Hyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Kon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 132 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ae Kyung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Min Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Il Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 133 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Ja Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Suk Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 134 of 288

Plaintiff Kyu Baik Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ai Ran Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jin Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 135 of 288

Plaintiff Hee Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Woo Yong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Jung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 136 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Zin−Pha Li TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yien Sough Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 137 of 288

Jee Hoon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yoon Sik Lee

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jong Hee Lee

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 138 of 288

Plaintiff Eung Jun Lee
Plaintiff Sang Eun Lee
Plaintiff Eung Sang Lee

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 139 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Ki Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sun Hee Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suh Jin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 140 of 288

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sook Hyun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Han Na Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Joon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 141 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Hyun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Cheon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Duk Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 142 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joon Woo Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Eun Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 143 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kun Woo Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Ho Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hee Sook Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 144 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Jai Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Min Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Kyu Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 145 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeen Ran Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se Jong Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se Hyup Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 146 of 288

Plaintiff Yun Chang Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kyung Soon Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Koon Cheung Tom Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 147 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwai Loi Leung Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Yin Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wing Yin Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Koon Tai Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 148 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Siu Fong Leung Wong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Ting Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hiu Wai Leung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 149 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chun−Hsiung Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shu−Chen Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shun−Jen Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 150 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Lin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pen−Yu Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsiu Fang Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 151 of 288

Yi Chan Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Chin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Hsien Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−li Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 152 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsuan−Ping Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
I−Ping Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hung−Hsiang Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 153 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pin−Pin Liao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen−Chin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching Ming Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 154 of 288

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hou Chou Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen Yuan Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia Kai Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 155 of 288

Plaintiff Shu−Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wei Ting Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wei Hsuen Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yi Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 156 of 288

Plaintiff Chung Nan Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ho−Whei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Li Lin Lee TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 157 of 288

Plaintiff Chuang−Ju Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chuang−Yeh Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hsien−Lin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 158 of 288

Plaintiff Hui−Mei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Min−Cheng Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia−Yu Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 159 of 288

Plaintiff Hwa−Hsiung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chin−Ching Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Szu−Yin Lin

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 160 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ko−Ting Lin

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li Li Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tsung Ming Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 161 of 288

Plaintiff You−Sheng Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wen Hui Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 162 of 288

Hung−Wei Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei−Hung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ming Ling Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Nan Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 163 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Ching Chen TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Hung Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen Yin Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 164 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chien−Yu Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Chien Lin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alice Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 165 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Shang−Fu Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei Chih Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Hao Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 166 of 288

Plaintiff Te−Hung Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chiang Ling Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Mei−Ling Liu Lo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff I−Wen Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 167 of 288

Plaintiff Tzu−Hao Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yen−Po Liu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shiu−Lan Ma TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 168 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi−Hua Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hao−Hua Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 169 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young−Sook Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seon−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Se−Young Min TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 170 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joon Sik Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mi Ja Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Suk Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 171 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Sun Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yong Suk Moon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chi Seung Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 172 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Hee Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Hyun Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hye Rim Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 173 of 288

Min Hyun Noh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chii−Ching Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chin−Hua Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Te−Han Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 174 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Te−Jen Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Keun Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei Chun Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 175 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yi Yang Pan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Don Suk Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yoon Sok Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 176 of 288

Plaintiff Jung Woo Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jae Kwan Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ae Ryun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jang Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 177 of 288

Plaintiff Jee Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff In Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Seon Og Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 178 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yun Kyung Chung TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Rye Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hong Ryong Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 179 of 288

Plaintiff Sun Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Shin Ae Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tae Heup Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 180 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hwa Ja Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung June Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Joung Hye Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Woo Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 181 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hye Sun Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Sung Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Wook Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 182 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Raulie D Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Concepcion V Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Adrian V Rodrigo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 183 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jose Romero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marie Rose Romero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyuk Hwan Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 184 of 288

Ja Hye Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yung Chan Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Soo Yung Ryoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Jung Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 185 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Hong Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Beom Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moung Sook Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 186 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Shin Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Hwan Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jeong Hwa Seo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 187 of 288

Plaintiff Cheng−Hsiung She
Plaintiff Hui Wen She
Plaintiff Tzu Ming She

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 188 of 288

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Heng−Shiang Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yao−Meng Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai−Li Shih TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 189 of 288

Plaintiff Myung Seong Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chung Hwa Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hoon Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jie Hye Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 190 of 288

Plaintiff Sug Soo Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Bo Soo Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Soon Yong Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 191 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sun Hee Shim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Young Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chang Yeol Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 192 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Ye Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ji Min Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Moon Soo Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Sook Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 193 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Hoon Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Won Ju Shin TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Lim Shon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 194 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 195 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Yong Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Youn Woo Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyun Jung Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 196 of 288

Jae Hyung Sim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Oleg Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Galsira Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maxim Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 197 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kseniva Sitnikov TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Stanley S T Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ivy H K Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 198 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Vivian Siu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Ju Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Joon Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 199 of 288

Plaintiff Min Jeong Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jee Min Sohn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Ching−Fu Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu Hua Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 200 of 288

Plaintiff Po Hsieh Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yin Yuan Su TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chun−Chen Su

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 201 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsueh−Lan Tang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Po−Lin Su

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Po−Wei Su

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 202 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You Ho Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mi Ran Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Kwan Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min Sue Suh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 203 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yueh−Ching Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ru−Ying Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
You−Chen Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 204 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wan−Hsuan Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kwei−You Tao TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jorge Alberto Tellez Chaves TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 205 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Marcela Tellez Gomez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Laura Tellez Gomez TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 206 of 288

Chien−Hwa Tong TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Andres D Toro−Betancur TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Liliana Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Susana Toro−Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 207 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Paulina Toro−Isaza TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dario Toro−Quintero TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 208 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Keng−Mu Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeu−Jiunn Tsai TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fan Zee Eric Tsang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 209 of 288

Plaintiff Hsiu−Linag Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Wen−Hsi Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Huan−Min Tseng TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Tu Hsiu Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 210 of 288

Plaintiff Chien Mei Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Chia Hsiang Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Fang Chi Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 211 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Fang Ching Tsui TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Po−En Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 212 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wei Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yuk Lan Wang Wong

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ming Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dawei Wang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 213 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Chien Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Yu Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ping−Lun Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 214 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Chi Wei TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chao−Shih Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Lin Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 215 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Meng−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chen−Jung Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li−Cheng Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 216 of 288

Cheng−Han Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cheng−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsian−Ju Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mei−Yueh Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 217 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kun Kuang Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pei−Chen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia−Chen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 218 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yu−Fen Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yang Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ching−Chun Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 219 of 288

Plaintiff Chun−Chieh Wu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jen−Tzong Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Fen−Lan Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Yu−Ling Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 220 of 288

Plaintiff Man−Chiou Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Pen−Po Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Jen−Hsing Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 221 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hsin−Ti Yang TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Wen−Rong Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih Yu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 222 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tsai Chu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chia Chu Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
So Hung Yeh TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ki Sun Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 223 of 288

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Sook Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chong Hwa Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yon Jung Yim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 224 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dong Khun Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ha Young Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Han Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 225 of 288

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sang Won Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Su Jung Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ho Yang Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 226 of 288

Young Ae Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sung Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jin Hwan Yoo TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hyung Sik Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 227 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chan−Kyung Park TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In−Sub Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Min−Sub Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 228 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
In Soo Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kyung Deog Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Byung Hee Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 229 of 288

Plaintiff Ji En Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Kwang Hee Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Hak−Woo Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 230 of 288

Hak−Sun Kim TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Seung Rok Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Young Jan Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jung Sang Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 231 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jae Yeon Yoon TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Bok Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Cin Ok Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 232 of 288

Plaintiff Chul Hwoan Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Young Hwoan Youn TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Plaintiff Sheng−Chun Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 233 of 288

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Li Chin Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kai Li Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chih Yi Yu TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 234 of 288

Chao Yuan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Ai Guo Han TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Xiaoying Yuan TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Suk Shin Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 235 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hae Sil Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Wool Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Yeo Sang Yun TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 236 of 288

TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Almark Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 237 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Denim Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 238 of 288

Plaintiff
Alabama Millry Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Alabama River Run Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 239 of 288

Plaintiff C&W Hotel Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff Delaware Milford Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff Georgia Almark Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 240 of 288

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 241 of 288

Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

M Jocelyn Wright US Department of Justice Civil Division P O Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044−0878 202−616−4900 Email: Jocelyn.Wright@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

Heather Phillips US Department of Justice Civil Division 1331 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 8041N Washington, DC 20004 202−616−9343 TERMINATED: 02/14/2011

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 242 of 288

Plaintiff
Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership a Mississippi Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 243 of 288

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 244 of 288

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Recap Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Recap Fund V Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000

David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
RPC Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 245 of 288

Plaintiff South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 246 of 288

Plaintiff WTC Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership
Plaintiff United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership a Maryland Limited Partnership

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Levy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant United States of America

represented by Anthony DiCastro US Department of Justice Civil Div, Office of Immigration Lit 1331 Penn Ave PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anthony P Nicastro US Department of Justice 1331 Penn Ave

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 247 of 288
PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 Fax: 202−616−4975 Email: anthony.nicastro@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David V Bernal US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station P O Box 878 Washington, DC 20044 202−616−4900 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ernesto Molina US Department of Justice Civil Div, Office of Immigration Lit 1331 Penn Ave PO Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−616−9358 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gjon Juncaj US Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−307−8514 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly Helvey US Department of Justice CIVIL − OIL − DCS 450 Fifth Street NW PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4667 Fax: 202−616−8962 Email: kimberly.e.helvey@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leon W Weidman AUSA − Office of US Attorney Chief − Civil Division 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2408 Fax: 213 894 7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
M Jocelyn Wright (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Russell William Chittenden

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 248 of 288

AUSA − Office of US Attorney Civil Division Federal Building 300 North Los Angeles Street Suite 7516 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213−894−2444 Fax: 213−894−7819 Email: USACAC.Civil@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam Laurence Goldman US Department of Justice Civil Division − Office of Immigration Litigation 450 Fifth Street NW Room 6224 Washington, DC 20001 202−616−9131 TERMINATED: 01/05/2011

Geoffrey Forney United States Department of Justice OIL − District Court Section 450 5th Street, NW Room 6104 Washington, DC 20001 202−532−4329 Email: geoff.forney@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn M Girdharry US Department of Justice Civil Division − Immigration Litigation PO Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 202−532−4807 Fax: 202−305−7000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heather Phillips (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/14/2011

Shirley Wang Hoo Shirley Wang Hoo Law Offices P O Box 3874 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266−1874 310−663−3010 TERMINATED: 08/13/2008

Plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang

represented by Ira J Kurzban (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marc Van Der Hout (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Levy

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 249 of 288
(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/08/2000
David Bellamy Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stacy Eva Tolchin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/12/1999 10/12/1999 10/18/1999 10/26/1999
10/26/1999 12/13/1999 12/13/1999 12/27/1999 01/21/2000 01/21/2000 02/07/2000
03/08/2000

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed Summons(es) Issued referred to Discovery Andrew J. Wistrich (pc) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
2 NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by plaintiff's (pc) (Entered: 10/15/1999)
3 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re CASE MANAGEMENT (SEE DOCUMENT) (yc) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
4 RETURN RECEIPT of Certified Mail showing service of sms/cmp, ntcs delivery to Janet Reno, US Atty, USA, rcvd by rubber stamp Elwood C Robinson of Dept of Justice on 10/19/99 (lk) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
5 Non−Governmental Party's Corporate Disclosure. (lk) (Entered: 10/28/1999)
6 ANSWER filed by defendant USA to complaint [1−1] (lk) (Entered: 12/15/1999)
7 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER by Judge George H. King that the document ans is to be fld & processed. (bp) (Entered: 12/17/1999)
8 CERTIFICATION AS TO INTERESTED PTYS Purs to L/R 4.6 by defendant USA (jp) (Entered: 12/28/1999)
9 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed. Estimated length of trial; plf estimate 10−15 days; dft estimates 2−3 days (rrey) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
10 JOINT NOTICE OF MSC (rrey) (Entered: 01/24/2000)
11 MINUTES: Mandatory status conf held. Crt directs pla to fi their 1st A/C by 3/8/00. Dft shall ans the 1st A/C by 3/22/00 by Judge George H. King CR: none (lk) Modified on 03/08/2000 (Entered: 02/09/2000)
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for injuctive and declaratory relief & for damages [1−1] by plaintiffs terminating Yeo Sang Yun, Yeo Wool Yun, Hae Sil, Suk Shin Yun, Xiaoying Yuan, Ai Guo Han, Chao Yuan, Chih Yi Yu, Kai Li Yu, Li Chin Yu, Sheng−Chun Yu, Young Hwoan Youn, Chul Hwoan Youn, Cin Ok Youn, Yeo Bok Youn, Jae Yeon Yoon, Jung Sang Yoon, Young Jan Yoon, Seung Rok Yoon, Hak−Sun Kim, Hak−Woo Kim, Kwang Hee Yoon, Ji En Yoon, Byung Hee Yoon, Kyung Deog Yoon, In Soo Yoon, Min−Sub Yoon, In−Sub Yoon, Chan−Kyung Park, Hyung Sik Yoon, Jin Hwan Yoo, Sung Yoo, Young Ae Yoo, Ho Yang Yoo, Su Jung Yoo, Sang Won Yoo, Seung Han Yoo, Ha Young Yoo, Dong Khun Yoo, Yon Jung Yim, Chong Hwa Yim, Young Sook Yim, Ki Sun Yim, So Hung Yeh, Chia Chu Yeh, Tsai Chu Yeh, Chih Yu Yeh, Wen−Rong Yeh, Hsin−Ti Yang, Jen−Hsing Yang, Pen−Po Yang, Man−Chiou Yang, Yu−Ling Yang, Fen−Lan Yang, Jen−Tzong Yang, Chun−Chieh Wu, Ching−Chun Wu, Yang Wu, Yu−Fen Wu, Chia−Chen Wu, Pei−Chen Wu, Kun Kuang Wu, Mei−Yueh Wu, Hsian−Ju Wu, Cheng−Ju Wu, Cheng−Han Wu, Li−Cheng Wu, Chen−Jung Wu, Meng−Ju Wu, Li−Lin Wu, Chao−Shih Wu, Chia−Chi Wei, Ping−Lun Wei, Li−Yu Wei, Ho Chien Wei, Dawei Wang, Ming Wang, Yuk Lan Wang Wong, Wei Wang, Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang, Po−En Wang, Fang Ching Tsui, Fang Chi Tsui, Chia Hsiang Tsui, Chien Mei Tsui, Tu Hsiu Tsui, Huan−Min Tseng, Wen−Hsi Tseng, Hsiu−Linag Tseng, Fan Zee Eric Tsang, Yeu−Jiunn Tsai, Keng−Mu Tsai, Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie, Dario Toro−Quintero, Paulina Toro−Isaza, Susana Toro−Isaza, Liliana Isaza, Andres D Toro−Betancur, Chien−Hwa Tong, Laura Tellez Gomez, Marcela Tellez Gomez, Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez, Jorge Alberto Tellez Chaves, Kwei−You Tao,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 250 of 288
Wan−Hsuan Tao, You−Chen Tao, Ru−Ying Tao, Yueh−Ching Tao, Min Sue Suh, Dong Kwan Suh, Mi Ran Suh, You Ho Suh, Po−Wei Su, Po−Lin Su, Hsueh−Lan Tang, Chun−Chen Su, Yin Yuan Su, Po Hsieh Su, Yu Hua Su, Ching−Fu Su, Jee Min Sohn, Min Jeong Sohn, Ho Joon Sohn, In Ju Sohn, Vivian Siu, Ivy H K Siu, Stanley S T Siu, Kseniva Sitnikov, Maxim Sitnikov,Galsira Sitnikov, Oleg Sitnikov, Jae Hyung Sim, Hyun Jung Sim, Youn Woo Sim, Hyun Yong Sim, Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg, Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg, Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg, Jae Lim Shon, Won Ju Shin, Jae Hoon Shin, Kyung Sook Shin, Moon Soo Shin, Ji Min Shin, Ji Ye Shin, Chang Yeol Shin, Jin Young Shin, Sun Hee Shim, Soon Yong Shim, Bo Soo Shim, Sug Soo Shim, Jie Hye Shim, Young Hoon Shim, Chung Hwa Shim, Myung Seong Shim, Kai−Li Shih, Yao−Meng Shih, Heng−Shiang Shih, Jeong Hwa Seo, Dong Hwan Seo, Dong Shin Seo, Moung Sook Seo, Seung Beom Seo, Hyun Hong Seo, Ho Jung Seo, Soo Yung Ryoo, Yung Chan Ryoo, Ja Hye Ryoo, Hyuk Hwan Ryoo, Marie Rose Romero, Jose Romero, Adrian V Rodrigo, Concepcion V Rodrigo, Raulie D Rodrigo, Hyun Wook Park, Hyun Sung Park, Hye Sun Park, Young Woo Park, Joung Hye Park, Joung June Park, Hwa Ja Park, Tae Heup Park, Shin Ae Kim, Sun Ae Kim, Hong Ryong Kim, Seung Rye Park, Yun Kyung Chung, Seon Og Park, In Sun Park, Jee Sun Park, Jang Sun Park, Ae Ryun Park, Jae Kwan Park, Jung Woo Park, Yoon Sok Park, Don Suk Park, Yi Yang Pan, Pei Chun Pan, Ching−Keun Pan, Te−Jen Pan, Te−Han Pan, Chin−Hua Pan, Chii−Ching Pan, Min Hyun Noh, Hye Rim Noh, Dong Hyun Noh, Jung Hee Noh, Chi Seung Noh, Yong Suk Moon, Hyun Sun Moon, Jin Suk Moon, Mi Ja Moon, Joon Sik Moon, Se−Young Min, Seon−Young Min, Ji−Young Min, Young−Sook Min, Hyung Min, Hao−Hua Tang, Chi−Hua Tang, Shiu−Lan Ma, Yen−Po Liu, Tzu−Hao Liu, I−Wen Liu, Mei−Ling Liu Lo, Chiang Ling Tsai, Te−Hung Tsai, Yu−Hao Liu, Mei Chih Liu, Shang−Fu Liu, Alice Liu, Wen−Chien Lin, Chien−Yu Lin, Chen Yin Lin, Yu−Hung Lin, Yu−Ching Chen, Kai−Nan Chen, Ming Ling Lin, Wei−Hung Lin, Hung−Wei Lin, Wen Hui Lin, Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin, You−Sheng Lin, Tsung Ming Lin, Li Li Lin, Ko−Ting Lin, Szu−Yin Lin, Chin−Ching Lin, Hwa−Hsiung Lin, Chia−Yu Lin, Min−Cheng Lin, Hui−Mei Lin, Hsien−Lin Lin, Chuang−Yeh Lin, Chuang−Ju Lin, Li Lin Lee, Ho−Whei Lin, Chung Nan Lin, Yi Ching Lin, Wei Hsuen Lin, Wei Ting Lin, Shu−Ching Lin, Chia Kai Lin, Wen Yuan Lin, Hou Chou Lin, Ching Ming Lin, Chen−Chin Lin, Pin−Pin Liao, Hung−Hsiang Liao, I−Ping Liao, Hsuan−Ping Liao, Mei−li Liao, Wen−Hsien Liao, Yi Chin Liao, Yi Chan Liao, Hsiu Fang Liao, Pen−Yu Liao, Wei−Lin Liao, Shun−Jen Liao, Shu−Chen Liao, Chun−Hsiung Liao, Hiu Wai Leung, Yi Ting Leung, Siu Fong Leung Wong, Koon Tai Leung, Wing Yin Leung, Ho Yin Leung, Kwai Loi Leung Lee, Koon Cheung Tom Leung, Kyung Soon Lee, Yun Chang Lee, Se Hyup Lee, Se Jong Lee, Jeen Ran Lee, Young Kyu Lee, Seung Min Lee, Seung Jai Lee, Hee Sook Lee, Young Ho Lee, Kun Woo Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Joon Woo Lee, Duk Soon Lee, Young Cheon Lee, Sung Hyun Lee, Sung Joon Lee, Han Na Lee, Sook Hyun Lee, Suh Jin Lee, Sun Hee Lee, Yong Ki Lee, Jee Hoon Lee, Yung Soon Lee, Yien Sough Lee, Zin−Pha Li, Mei−Jung Lee, Woo Yong Lee, Hee Yong Lee, Jin Yong Lee, Ai Ran Lee, Kyu Baik Lee, Yoon Suk Lee, Chang Jin Lee, Jung Ja Lee, Suk Il Lee, Suk Min Lee, Ae Kyung Lee, Jae Kon Lee, Wook Hyung Lee, Eun−Kyung Lee, Hyo Won Lee, Hyo Won Lee, Young Ja Lee, Dae Yeon Lee, Sang Heui Lee, Sang Jin Lee, Sang Gyu Lee, Je Ho Lee, Chil Ok Lee, King Yip Lau, King Yin Lau, Hiu Yan Lau, Wai Yee Lau Leung, Sai Yue Lau, Yen Ju Lai, Chun Wei Lai, Ching−Hsiu Lai, Ying−Ming Lai, I−Chun Lai, Jen−Tien Lai, Jin Sung Kwon, Jin Hyeng Kwon, Yoeun Hwa Kwon, Song Joo Kwon, Hyeong Jin Kwon, Hyo Jeong Kwon, You Young Kwon, Hee Jae Kwon, Yu Wei Kuo, Yo−tzu Kuo, Ching−Yang Kuo, Wen−Hui Kuo, Chien−Ting Kuo, Mei−Miao Kuo, Chin−Hsin Kuo, Chih−Hsiang Ko, Chih−Chieh Ko, Wen−Lin Ko, Sung Hoon Ko, Sung Hyun Ko, Mee Sun Ko, Ji Ho Kim, Hee Seung Kim, Young Sun Kim, Tae−Ho Kim, Dae Woong Kim, A Young Kim, Da Young Kim, Jin Hee Kim, Ssang Gi Kim, Tae Hyun Kim, Tae Kyu Kim, Heung Joo Kim, Soon Ae Kim, Jee Sun Kim, Sae Hoon Kim, Young Sook Kim Baek, See Ouk Kim, Jae Kyun Kim, Jae Ho Kim, Kyung Hee Kim, Sae Hyun Kim, Hyun Woo Kim, Kyung Sook Kim, Wan Sun Kim, Hyung Sun Kim, Myong Soon Kim, Kyung Joong Kim, Won Woo Kim, Hae Jin Kim, Yeon Joo Kim, Kyung Ho Kim, Hee Jin Kim, Seung Hwan Kim, Young Hee Kim, Kwon Gi Kim, Jung Woo Kim, Jung Hoon Kim, Duk Soo Kim, Kwang Won Kim, Seong Ik Kim, Jeong Kyung Kim, Jeong Sun Kim, Keun Young Kim, Joong Heon Kim, Yeon Jin Kim, Tae Ho Kim, Young Mo Kim, Jong Won Kim, June Young Kim, June Gil Kim, Kwee Sik Jang, Hwan Kyum Kim, Young Chan Kim, So Jeong Kim, Sung Ja Kim, Han Soo Kim, Moon Kyung Kim, Moon Jung Kim, Hae Won Kim, Hyung Seok Kim, Hee Jung Kim, Sung Sook Kim, Dong Ho Kim, Jae

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 251 of 288

03/22/2000

Myung Kim, Choong Nam Kim, Joung Kwan Kim, Joung Nam Kim, Ok Hyeun Kim, Chang Hack Kim, Jun Hyun Kim, Ki Hyun Kim, Hak Soo Kim, Chan Young Kim, Min Seong Kim, Geon Tae Kim, Soo Jeong Kim, Hwa Shin Kim, Chae Young Kim, An Kuo Kao, Yu Lien Liang, Chien Kuei Kao, Yang Sook Kang, Jeoung Soo Kang, Ha Na Kang, Shin Ho Kang, Eun Tae Kang, Ik Hee Kang, Yo Han Kang, Young Hee Kang, Chang−Sik Kang, Yu−Chia Kai, Yu−Ling Kai, Ching−Jen Kai, Chuan−Ching Kai, Yu Wen Juan, Yoon Suk Jo, Yoo Jin Jo, So Nim Jo, Jae Sung Jo, Cheng−Hung Jiang, Mei−Ju Jiang, Su Chen Jiang, Yi−Yen Jiang, Jae Hyeok Jang, Ya Jin Jang, Kyu Hur, Kyung Hwa Hur, Yool Hur, Myung Ok Hur, Fu−Kai Huang, Fu−Nan Huang, Lai−Hao Huang, Chin−Chang Huang, Ta−Wei Huang, Ta−You Huang, Ta−Lun Huang, Jen−Chieh Huang, Bi Chen Huang, Chi−Fang Hsu, Shu Chen Hsu Wu, Shih Chieh Hsu, Chen Hsieh, Chia Hsieh, Hui Ling Hsieh, Pang−Chi Hsieh, Tsung−Yi Hsieh, Hui Jou Hsieh, Jui−Hsin Hsieh, Hsiu Chin Hsieh, Hsi−Chieh Hsieh, Chia−Jun Hsieh, Yi−Jun Hsieh, Hoa−Chao Hsieh, Chou−Yi Hsieh, Yu−Chin Hsiao, Yu−Ju Hsiao, Yu−Chieh Hsiao, Mei−Shu Hsiao, Chun−Te Hsiao, Mu−Jou Hsiao, Chiao−Yun Hsiao, Li−Mei Hsiao, Cheng−Ming Hsiao, Yoon Ki Hong, Kyung He Hong, Sung Koo Hong, Jee Min Hong, Myong Soo Hong, Jung Sook Hong, Jae Kyung Han, Jae Suck Han, Chung Won Han, Kyung Hack Han, Jae Young Jun, Chae Ok Jun, Woo Young Jun, Bon Min Gu, Bon Young Gu, Ja Kyung Gu, Mi Jin Gu, Anna Gorilovskaia, Lev Gorilovskiy, Tatyana Gorilovskaia, Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy, Yuan Wang, Bin Wang, Fuyu Wang, Hong−Mei Gong, Po Man Fung, Chi Leung Fung, Chiu Ling Fung Leung, Kai−Tim Fung, Elissa Nell R Espinueva, Evelyn R Espinueva, Edward Rae R Espinueva, Fe Helengrace R Espinueva, Eugene Espinueva C, Natividad M Cruz, Bernardo V Cruz, Tae Sik Chung, Won Sik Chung, Jin Hee Chung, Chin Dong Chung, Kai−Hung Chuang, Hui−Yu Chuang, Hui−Tsung Chuang, Mei−Lin Chuang, Yu−Te Chuang, Pei−ju Chuang, Tzu−Hsin Chuang, Mei−Jung Chuang, Ta−Ching Chuang, Yi−Hsuan Chou, Mao−Chuan Chou, Wei Yen, Yu−Lin Chou, Wei−Jen Chou, Yu−Shan Chou, Wei−Chun Chou, Shu−Fang Chou, Jin−Chen Chou, Chih−Ling Chou, Chih−Wei Chou, Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou, Chung−Chun Chou, Pi−Yun Chou, Chun−Wen Chou, Sung−Hi Choi, Sung Bum Choi, Bog−Hi Choi, Young Kil Choi, Hee Jin Choi, Woo Hyun Choi, Hyung Jin Choi, Yoon Hee Choi, Soo Bong Choi, Eun Ah Choi, Eun Suk Choi, Jung Ran Choi, Song Hak Choi, Min Koo Choi, Sook Ja Choi, Jeong Hwan Choi, Jae Hyuck Choi, Bong Ok Choi, Heung Kohl Choi, Daseolhan Choi, Han Wool Choi, Kwang Ae Choi, Ha Sub Choi, Woo Seok Choe, Young Ja Choe, Yoon Seok Choe, Yen−Ling Chiu,Yen−Chih Chiu, Hsueh−Hui Chiu, Ching−Chi Chiu, Feng I Chien, Cheng−Tai Chien, Su Yin Chien, Chung Hsiung Chien, Yi Yuan Chiang, Yuan−Kai Chiang, Yueh−Mei Chiang, Po−Cheng Chiang, I−Chieh Cheng, Yi−Fan Cheng, Chiu−Liang Cheng, Shu−Hua Cheng, Wei−Ju Chen, Wei−Shin Chen, Li−Hua Chen, Yun−Ping Chen, Shih Hwa Chen, Hisn−Yun Chen, Wei Chen, Pao−Chu Chen, I−Fan Chen, Siao−Shee Chao, Liang−Chung Chen, Wu−Cheng Chen, Jun−Chiu Chen, Hsiu−Hua Chen, Kuen−Yan Chen, Chih−Yu Chen, Ling−Ching Chen, Hung−Liang Chen, Hsin−I Chen, Yi−Hsuan Chen, Po−Lin Chen, Chiung−Chu Chen, Hui−Hsiung Chen, Yu−Hung Chen, Yu−Tai Chen, Chih Hui Chen, Hsiang−Fu Chen, Chia−Ling Chen, Yueh−Ying Chen, Guo−Chueng Chen, Mu Hua Chen, Chien Chuan Chen, Chao Fang Chen, Chi−Jen Chen, Hsiao−Han Hsueh, Jen−Chieh Hsueh, Yu−Tai Chang, Min Il Chang, Min Ah Chang, Mi Ok Chang, Yong Sik Chang, Yao−Jen Chang, Yao−Wen Chang, Shu−Hua Chang, Yi−Ming Chang, Yu−Hui Chang, Tun−Wei Chang, Hsiang−Ping Chang, Yen−Pin Chang, Chia−How Chang, Hsu−Yi Chang, Ta−Peng Chang, Tsung−Wei Chang, Wei−Ting Chang, Yu−Fang Hsu, Ruey Rong Chang, Jae Bum Chang, Jae Woo Chang, Jae Young Chang, Hye Yeon Chang, Myung Hoon Chang, Sheng−Fu Chang, Chun−Fu Chang, Yen−Hui Chang, Li−Yueh Chang, Yung Cheng Chang, Ching−Wen Chang, Li−Chen Chang, Chan−Wei Chang, Chan−Zue Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, Chan−Chia Chang, Hsueh−Mei Chang, Ching−Farn Chang, Che−Pei Chang, Yen−Li Chang, Jin−Fong Chang, Chin−Yu Chang, Man Chi Chan, Man Zse Chan, Man Kit Chan, Pik Chiu, Chee Cheung Chan, Yoon Yi Cha, Sun Yi Cha, Nak Soon Cha, Myung Jo Cha, Katriona Gillian Buhler, Gillian Webb Buhler, Albrecht Buhler, Jun Bum Bang, Ji Young Bang, In Sun Bang, Yong Ho Bang, Hyun Jung Bak, Eun Kyu Bak, Syun Hee Bak, No Woong Bak, Lev I Babiev, Igor S Babiev, Tae Eun Ahn, Soo Yeon Ahn, Jae Bum Ahn, Kyung Sook Ahn; adding Yi Yuan Chiang. Summons not issued (ir) (Entered: 03/14/2000)
13 ANSWER filed by defendant USA to 1st amended complaint [12−1] (yl) (Entered: 03/24/2000)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 252 of 288

04/05/2000 04/05/2000 04/20/2000 06/27/2000 06/27/2000 06/28/2000 06/30/2000 07/11/2000 07/11/2000 07/18/2000 07/18/2000 07/18/2000 07/20/2000 07/31/2000 07/31/2000 08/10/2000 08/11/2000 09/01/2000 09/06/2000

14 SECOND STATUS REPORT by defendant purs to 2/7/00 Crt Ord (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
15 STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs purs to 2/7/00 Crt Ord (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2000)
16 SUPPL STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (rrey) (Entered: 04/21/2000)
17 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by defendant USA to dismiss 1st A/C , or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C ; req to defer setting a discov sched pending disposition motion hearing set for 9:30 8/28/00 (rrey) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
18 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USA of motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 06/28/2000)
19 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant USA of motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt, for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 06/29/2000)
20 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King, the parties have stip to the fol: 6/27/00 dft files opening memo; 7/18/00 plfs fil ans memo; 7/31/00 dft files rply. (yc) (Entered: 07/03/2000)
21 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification , & for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt ; motion hearing set for 9:30 8/28/00 Lodged Ord (rrey) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
22 MEMORANDUM OF P/A IN SUPPORT by plaintiffs of motion for class certification [21−1], for enlargement of time to mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/12/2000)
23 MEMO OF PA's IN OPPOSITION by plaintiff to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (lk) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
24 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King re brief sched for plfs mot for class cert (rrey) (Entered: 07/19/2000)
25 MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
26 CORRECTED MEMO OF P/A IN OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 07/20/2000)
27 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for class certification [21−1], motion for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (lk) (Entered: 08/01/2000)
28 REPLY MEMO by defendant USA in support of its motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (lk) (Entered: 08/02/2000)
30 NOTICE OF INTENT to rely on attached case law by plaintiffs in opp to dfts motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], or in the alt for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (rrey) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
29 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs in suppt of motion for class certification [21−1], & for enlargement of time to mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] (rrey) (Entered: 08/18/2000)
31 NOTICE OF INTENT by plaintiffs To Rely on Case Law in opp to motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] (yl) (Entered: 09/06/2000)
32 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge George H. King IT IS SO ORD: continuing hearing on dfts motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2], plfs motion for class certification [21−1], for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert w/ lv of Crt [21−2] to 9:30 10/16/00 (rrey) (Entered: 09/07/2000)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 253 of 288

10/10/2000 10/16/2000
11/30/2000 12/04/2000 12/04/2000 12/04/2000 12/06/2000 12/08/2000
12/11/2000
12/12/2000 12/12/2000 01/03/2001 01/03/2001 02/12/2001 02/23/2001 02/23/2001 02/26/2001 03/08/2001 03/16/2001 03/21/2001

33 NOTICE by defendant USA of recent decision (rrey) (Entered: 10/11/2000)
34 MINUTES: Re dfts mot to dism or in the alt for jgm on the pleadings; mot for class cert and for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert: Crt directs fur brief on the issues discussed in open crt w/in forty−five (45) days hereof; Crt defers ruling on mot for class cert and for enlargement of time to file mot for class cert pending fur brief on the mot to dism or in the alt, mot for jgm on pleadings IT IS SO ORD by Judge George H. King CR: Irene Nakamura (rrey) (Entered: 10/19/2000)
37 RESPONSE to the crt's request of 10/16/00 by plaintiffs and defendants re minutes [34−1] (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
35 EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang for temporary restraining order , for preliminary injunction Lodged propsd order (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
36 MEMORANDUM OF P & A IN SUPPORT by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang of exparte application for temporary restraining order [35−1], exparte application for preliminary injunction [35−2] (bp) (Entered: 12/05/2000)
42 EMERGENCY MOTION filed by plaintiff fr provisional class certification or permisison to allw orig cmplt naming all investors to stand class actn (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
38 SUBMISSION of addtl den of Class Members I−829 Appl by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 12/08/2000)
40 Memo of p&a in OPPOSITION by defendant USA to exparte motion for temporary restraining order [35−1], exparte motion for preliminary injunction [35−2], or in alt that the req for bond be granted w/out modification; motion for class certification [21−1] (bg) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
39 MINUTES: denying plfs exparte appl for temporary restraining order [35−1]; denying w/out prej plfs exparte appl for preliminary injunction [35−2]; denying motion for class certification [21−1] by Judge George H. King CR: None (ENT 12/12/00) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 12/12/2000)
41 SUBMISSION by plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang of denial of named plfs I−829 appl as an addtl suppt of exparte appl for temporary restraining order [35−1] (rrey) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED plf prop ord re req for provisonal class certif & applc for tro etc (lc) (Entered: 12/15/2000)
43 RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/16/00 (Re: ) CR: Irene Nakamura (ghap) (ghap) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/16/00 (ghap) (ghap) (Entered: 01/05/2001)
44 NOTICE of filing additional ntcs of intent to deny pla class members' removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (bg) (Entered: 02/13/2001)
46 SUBMISSION of addtl denial of class members I−829 appl by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
47 ADDITIONAL NOTICE by plaintiffs of filing ntc of intent to deny plf class members removal of conditional residency (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
45 MOTION by plaintiff for order setting discov sched ; motion hearing set for 9:30 3/26/01 Lodged propsd ord (rrey) (Entered: 02/27/2001)
48 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] (bg) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
49 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts opp to motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] (rrey) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
50 MINUTES: that the motion for order setting discov sched [45−1] is taken under submission, resetting hearing on motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1] 9:30 3/27/01,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 254 of 288

03/22/2001 03/23/2001 04/04/2001 04/12/2001 04/13/2001 04/20/2001 04/23/2001 04/24/2001 05/02/2001
05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/03/2001 05/04/2001
05/04/2001 05/16/2001 05/16/2001

resetting hearing on motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2] 9:30 3/27/01 by Judge George H. King CR: n/p (bg) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
51 Additional NOTICE of filing ntcs of intent to deny pla class members' removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (bg) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
52 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
53 RESPONSE by defendant USA to the Crts req to consider voluntary rmd of investor plfs I−829 denials (rrey) (Entered: 04/05/2001)
54 REPLY to dfts resp; & REQUEST by plaintiff to expedite decision; ldg propsd ord (2) (rrey) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
LODGED SECOND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED ORDER submitted by plaintiff .(FWD TO CRD) (rrey) (Entered: 04/17/2001)
55 NOTICE OF FILING additional ntc of intent to deny plf class members removal of conditional residency by plaintiffs (rrey) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
56 REPLY by defendant to plfs resp [54−1] (rrey) (Entered: 04/25/2001)
57 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 04/26/2001)
58 MINUTES: GRANT in part DENY in part motion to dismiss 1st A/C [17−1], motion for judgment on the pleadings on 1st A/C [17−2]; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/out prej as to counts 1−4, 6−7; GR w/ prej as to counts 1, 3, 6 & those parts of counts 1 & 4 which do not involve the retroactivity clm; GR w/o prej as to count 5; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is DENIED w/o prej as to counts 2, 4, 7; plf Chiangs improper retroactive appl clm is RMD to INS; finding the motion for order setting discov sched [45−1], exparte appl for provisional class certification or permisison to allw orig cmplt naming all investors to stand class actn [42−1] moot; by Judge George H. King CR: None (ENT 5/3/01) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 05/03/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; Ord ldg by plfs n 4/12/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; (Propsd) Ord GR plfs mot to set discov sched ldg by plfs on 2/26/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; 2nd alt (propsd) ord ldg by plfs on 4/13/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; 1st alt (propsd) ord ldg by plfs on 4/12/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED; (Propsd) Ord on plfs mot for class cert & enlargement of time ldg by plfs on 7/11/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
59 JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/out prej as to counts 1−4, 6−7; as to plf Chiang dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/ regard to counts 1, 3, 6 & those parts of counts 2 & 4 which do not involve the retroactivity clm w/ prej; dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is GR w/o prej as to count 5; as to plf Chiang dfts mot for jgm on the pleadings is den w/o prej as to counts 2, 4 & 7; & plf Chiangs improper retroactive appl clm is rmd to the INS for due consideration & compilation of an admin record consisten w/ the 5/2/01 ord terminating case (MD JS−6) (ENT 5/7/01) (send/ntc) (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
60 SUBMISSION of additional denial of class members I−829 appl submitted by plfs (rrey) (Entered: 05/07/2001)
61 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs , or alt for class certification or alt for reconsideration of jgm entered on 5/7/01; motion hearing set for 9:30 6/11/01 (bg) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
62 MEMORANDUM OF PA IN SUPPORT by plaintiff of motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], motion for class certification [61−2], motion

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 255 of 288

05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/29/2001 05/29/2001
05/30/2001 06/06/2001 06/08/2001
06/12/2001 06/12/2001 07/02/2001

for reconsideration [61−3] (bg) (Entered: 05/18/2001)
63 MOTION by defendant to alter or amend jgm ; motion hearing set for 9:30 6/11/01 (rrey) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
64 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant of motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
65 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to dfts motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
66 NOTICE by plaintiffs of intent to rely on Local Rule 7.16 & the inherent auth on the Crt & not fed Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) in suppt of motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] (rrey) (Entered: 05/30/2001)
67 OPPOSITION by defendant USA to motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] (rrey) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
68 REPLY by plaintiffs to dfts opp to motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] (rrey) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
69 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) taking dfts motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1], plfs motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] off calendar by Judge George H. King CR: None. (rrey) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
70 MINUTES: denying motion for leave to amend cmp to add additional named plfs [61−1], for class certification [61−2], for reconsideration [61−3] by Judge George H. King CR: None (cc cnsl) (rrey) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
71 MINUTES: denying motion to alter or amend jgm [63−1] by Judge George H. King CR: None (cc cnsl) (rrey) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
72 NOTICE OF APPEAL by plaintiff Kyung Sook Ahn, plaintiff Jae Bum Ahn, plaintiff Soo Yeon Ahn, plaintiff Tae Eun Ahn, plaintiff Igor S Babiev, plaintiff Lev I Babiev, plaintiff No Woong Bak, plaintiff Syun Hee Bak, plaintiff Eun Kyu Bak, plaintiff Hyun Jung Bak, plaintiff Yong Ho Bang, plaintiff In Sun Bang, plaintiff Ji Young Bang, plaintiff Jun Bum Bang, plaintiff Albrecht Buhler, plaintiff Gillian Webb Buhler, plaintiff Katriona Gillian Buhler, plaintiff Myung Jo Cha, plaintiff Nak Soon Cha, plaintiff Sun Yi Cha, plaintiff Yoon Yi Cha, plaintiff Chee Cheung Chan, plaintiff Pik Chiu, plaintiff Man Kit Chan, plaintiff Man Zse Chan, plaintiff Man Chi Chan, plaintiff Chin−Yu Chang, plaintiff Jin−Fong Chang, plaintiff Yen−Li Chang, plaintiff Che−Pei Chang, plaintiff Ching−Farn Chang, plaintiff Hsueh−Mei Chang, plaintiff Chan−Chia Chang, plaintiff Chan−Haw Chang, plaintiff Chan−Zue Chang, plaintiff Chan−Wei Chang, plaintiff Li−Chen Chang, plaintiff Ching−Wen Chang, plaintiff Yung Cheng Chang, plaintiff Li−Yueh Chang, plaintiff Yen−Hui Chang, plaintiff Chun−Fu Chang, plaintiff Sheng−Fu Chang, plaintiff Myung Hoon Chang, plaintiff Hye Yeon Chang, plaintiff Jae Young Chang, plaintiff Jae Woo Chang, plaintiff Jae Bum Chang, plaintiff Ruey Rong Chang, plaintiff Yu−Fang Hsu, plaintiff Wei−Ting Chang, plaintiff Tsung−Wei Chang, plaintiff Ta−Peng Chang, plaintiff Hsu−Yi Chang, plaintiff Chia−How Chang, plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang, plaintiff Tsung−Ming Chang, plaintiff Chiao−Ying Chang, plaintiff Yen−Pin Chang, plaintiff Hsiang−Ping Chang, plaintiff Tun−Wei Chang, plaintiff Yu−Hui Chang, plaintiff Yi−Ming Chang, plaintiff Shu−Hua Chang, plaintiff Yao−Wen Chang, plaintiff Yao−Jen Chang, plaintiff Yong Sik Chang, plaintiff Mi Ok Chang, plaintiff Min Ah Chang, plaintiff Min Il Chang, plaintiff Yu−Tai Chang, plaintiff Jen−Chieh Hsueh, plaintiff Hsiao−Han Hsueh, plaintiff Chi−Jen Chen, plaintiff Chao Fang Chen, plaintiff Chien Chuan Chen, plaintiff Mu Hua Chen, plaintiff Guo−Chueng Chen, plaintiff Yueh−Ying Chen, plaintiff Chia−Ling Chen, plaintiff Hsiang−Fu Chen, plaintiff Chih Hui Chen, plaintiff Yu−Tai Chen, plaintiff Yu−Hung Chen, plaintiff Hui−Hsiung Chen, plaintiff Chiung−Chu Chen, plaintiff Po−Lin Chen, plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chen, plaintiff Hsin−I Chen, plaintiff Hung−Liang Chen, plaintiff Ling−Ching Chen, plaintiff Chih−Yu Chen, plaintiff Kuen−Yan Chen, plaintiff Hsiu−Hua Chen, plaintiff Jun−Chiu Chen, plaintiff Wu−Cheng Chen, plaintiff Liang−Chung Chen, plaintiff Siao−Shee Chao, plaintiff I−Fan Chen, plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 256 of 288
Pao−Chu Chen, plaintiff Wei − Chen, plaintiff Hisn−Yun Chen, plaintiff Shih Hwa Chen, plaintiff Yun−Ping Chen, plaintiff Li−Hua Chen, plaintiff Wei−Shin Chen, plaintiff Wei−Ju Chen, plaintiff Shu−Hua Cheng, plaintiff Chiu−Liang Cheng, plaintiff Yi−Fan Cheng, plaintiff I−Chieh Cheng, plaintiff Po−Cheng Chiang, plaintiff Yueh−Mei Chiang, plaintiff Yuan−Kai Chiang, plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang, plaintiff Chung Hsiung Chien, plaintiff Su Yin Chien, plaintiff Cheng−Tai Chien, plaintiff Feng I Chien, plaintiff Ching−Chi Chiu, plaintiff Hsueh−Hui Chiu, plaintiff Yen−Chih Chiu, plaintiff Yen−Ling Chiu, plaintiff Yoon Seok Choe, plaintiff Young Ja Choe, plaintiff Woo Seok Choe, plaintiff Ha Sub Choi, plaintiff Kwang Ae Choi, plaintiff Han Wool Choi, plaintiff Daseolhan Choi, plaintiff Heung Kohl Choi, plaintiff Bong Ok Choi, plaintiff Jae Hyuck Choi, plaintiff Jeong Hwan Choi, plaintiff Sook Ja Choi, plaintiff Min Koo Choi, plaintiff Song Hak Choi, plaintiff Jung Ran Choi, plaintiff Eun Suk Choi, plaintiff Eun Ah Choi, plaintiff Soo Bong Choi, plaintiff Yoon Hee Choi, plaintiff Hyung Jin Choi, plaintiff Woo Hyun Choi, plaintiff Hee Jin Choi, plaintiff Young Kil Choi, plaintiff Bog−Hi Choi, plaintiff Sung Bum Choi, plaintiff Sung−Hi Choi, plaintiff Chun−Wen Chou, plaintiff Pi−Yun Chou, plaintiff Chung−Chun Chou, plaintiff Hsu Yuan−Heng Chou, plaintiff Chih−Wei Chou, plaintiff Chih−Ling Chou, plaintiff Jin−Chen Chou, plaintiff Shu−Fang Chou, plaintiff Wei−Chun Chou, plaintiff Yu−Shan Chou, plaintiff Wei−Jen Chou, plaintiff Yu−Lin Chou, plaintiff Wei Yen, plaintiff Mao−Chuan Chou, plaintiff Yi−Hsuan Chou, plaintiff Ta−Ching Chuang, plaintiff Mei−Jung Chuang, plaintiff Tzu−Hsin Chuang, plaintiff Pei−ju Chuang, plaintiff Yu−Te Chuang, plaintiff Mei−Lin Chuang, plaintiff Hui−Tsung Chuang, plaintiff Hui−Yu Chuang, plaintiff Kai−Hung Chuang, plaintiff Chin Dong Chung, plaintiff Jin Hee Chung, plaintiff Won Sik Chung, plaintiff Tae Sik Chung, plaintiff Bernardo V Cruz, plaintiff Natividad M Cruz, plaintiff Eugene Espinueva C, plaintiff Fe Helengrace R Espinueva, plaintiff Edward Rae R Espinueva, plaintiff Evelyn R Espinueva, plaintiff Elissa Nell R Espinueva, plaintiff Kai−Tim Fung, plaintiff Chiu Ling Fung Leung, plaintiff Chi Leung Fung, plaintiff Po Man Fung, plaintiff Hong−Mei Gong, plaintiff Fuyu Wang, plaintiff Bin − Wang, plaintiff Yuan Wang, plaintiff Miron Isaakovich Gorilovskiy, plaintiff Tatyana Gorilovskaia, plaintiff Lev Gorilovskiy, plaintiff Anna Gorilovskaia, plaintiff Mi Jin Gu, plaintiff Ja Kyung Gu, plaintiff Bon Young Gu, plaintiff Bon Min Gu, plaintiff Woo Young Jun, plaintiff Chae Ok Jun, plaintiff Jae Young Jun, plaintiff Kyung Hack Han, plaintiff Chung Won Han, plaintiff Jae Suck Han, plaintiff Jae Kyung Han, plaintiff Jung Sook Hong, plaintiff Myong Soo Hong, plaintiff Jee Min Hong, plaintiff Sung Koo Hong, plaintiff Kyung He Hong, plaintiff Yoon Ki Hong, plaintiff Cheng−Ming Hsiao, plaintiff Li−Mei Hsiao, plaintiff Chiao−Yun Hsiao, plaintiff Mu−Jou Hsiao, plaintiff Chun−Te Hsiao, plaintiff Mei−Shu Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Chieh Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Ju Hsiao, plaintiff Yu−Chin Hsiao, plaintiff Chou−Yi Hsieh, plaintiff Hoa−Chao Hsieh, plaintiff Yi−Jun Hsieh, plaintiff Chia−Jun Hsieh, plaintiff Hsi−Chieh Hsieh, plaintiff Hsien−Ming Hsieh, plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh, plaintiff Pei−Chen Hsieh, plaintiff Pei−Shan Hsieh, plaintiff Hsiu Chin Hsieh, plaintiff Jui−Hsin Hsieh, plaintiff Hui Jou Hsieh, plaintiff Tsung−Yi Hsieh, plaintiff Pang−Chi Hsieh, plaintiff Hui Ling Hsieh, plaintiff Chia Hsieh, plaintiff Chen Hsieh, plaintiff Shih Chieh Hsu, plaintiff Shu Chen Hsu Wu, plaintiff Chi−Fang Hsu, plaintiff Bi Chen Huang, plaintiff Jen−Chieh Huang, plaintiff Ta−Lun Huang, plaintiff Ta−You Huang, plaintiff Ta−Wei Huang, plaintiff Chin−Chang Huang, plaintiff Lai−Hao Huang, plaintiff Fu−Nan Huang, plaintiff Fu−Kai Huang, plaintiff Myung Ok Hur, plaintiff Yool Hur, plaintiff Kyung Hwa Hur, plaintiff Kyu Hur, plaintiff Ya Jin Jang, plaintiff Jae Hyeok Jang, plaintiff Yi−Yen Jiang, plaintiff Su Chen Jiang, plaintiff Mei−Ju Jiang, plaintiff Cheng−Hung Jiang, plaintiff Jae Sung Jo, plaintiff So Nim Jo, plaintiff Yoo Jin Jo, plaintiff Yoon Suk Jo, plaintiff Yu Wen Juan, plaintiff Chuan−Ching Kai, plaintiff Ching−Jen Kai, plaintiff Yu−Ling Kai, plaintiff Yu−Chia Kai, plaintiff Chang−Sik Kang, plaintiff Young Hee Kang, plaintiff Yo Han Kang, plaintiff Ik Hee Kang, plaintiff Eun Tae Kang, plaintiff Shin Ho Kang, plaintiff Ha Na Kang, plaintiff Jeoung Soo Kang, plaintiff Yang Sook Kang, plaintiff Chien Kuei Kao, plaintiff Yu Lien Liang, plaintiff An Kuo Kao, plaintiff Chae Young Kim, plaintiff Hwa Shin Kim, plaintiff Soo Jeong Kim, plaintiff Geon Tae Kim, plaintiff Min Seong Kim, plaintiff Chan Young Kim, plaintiff Hak Soo Kim, plaintiff Ki Hyun Kim, plaintiff Jun Hyun Kim, plaintiff Chang Hack Kim, plaintiff Ok Hyeun Kim, plaintiff Joung Nam Kim, plaintiff Joung Kwan Kim, plaintiff Choong Nam Kim, plaintiff Jae Myung Kim, plaintiff Dong Ho Kim, plaintiff Sung Sook Kim, plaintiff Hee Jung Kim, plaintiff Hyung Seok Kim, plaintiff Hae Won Kim, plaintiff Moon Jung Kim, plaintiff Moon Kyung Kim, plaintiff Han Soo Kim, plaintiff Sung Ja Kim, plaintiff So Jeong Kim, plaintiff Young Chan Kim, plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 257 of 288
Hwan Kyum Kim, plaintiff Kwee Sik Jang, plaintiff June Gil Kim, plaintiff June Young Kim, plaintiff Jong Won Kim, plaintiff Young Mo Kim, plaintiff Tae Ho Kim, plaintiff Yeon Jin Kim, plaintiff Joong Heon Kim, plaintiff Keun Young Kim, plaintiff Jeong Sun Kim, plaintiff Jeong Kyung Kim, plaintiff Seong Ik Kim, plaintiff Kwang Won Kim, plaintiff Duk Soo Kim, plaintiff Jung Hoon Kim, plaintiff Jung Woo Kim, plaintiff Kwon Gi Kim, plaintiff Young Hee Kim, plaintiff Seung Hwan Kim, plaintiff Hee Jin Kim, plaintiff Kyung Ho Kim, plaintiff Yeon Joo Kim, plaintiff Hae Jin Kim, plaintiff Won Woo Kim, plaintiff Kyung Joong Kim, plaintiff Myong Soon Kim, plaintiff Hyung Sun Kim, plaintiff Wan Sun Kim, plaintiff Kyung Sook Kim, plaintiff Hyun Woo Kim, plaintiff Sae Hyun Kim, plaintiff Kyung Hee Kim, plaintiff Jae Ho Kim, plaintiff Jae Kyun Kim, plaintiff See Ouk Kim, plaintiff Young Sook Kim Baek, plaintiff Sae Hoon Kim, plaintiff Jee Sun Kim, plaintiff Soon Ae Kim, plaintiff Heung Joo Kim, plaintiff Tae Kyu Kim, plaintiff Tae Hyun Kim, plaintiff Ssang Gi Kim, plaintiff Jin Hee Kim, plaintiff Da Young Kim, plaintiff A Young Kim, plaintiff Dae Woong Kim, plaintiff Tae−Ho Kim, plaintiff Young Sun Kim, plaintiff Hee Seung Kim, plaintiff Ji Ho Kim, plaintiff Mee Sun Ko, plaintiff Sung Hyun Ko, plaintiff Sung Hoon Ko, plaintiff Wen−Lin Ko, plaintiff Chih−Chieh Ko, plaintiff Chih−Hsiang Ko, plaintiff Sung Duck Kong, plaintiff Hye Ra Kong, plaintiff Hyun Jung Kong, plaintiff Min Suk Kong, plaintiff Chin−Hsin Kuo, plaintiff Mei−Miao Kuo, plaintiff Chien−Ting Kuo, plaintiff Wen−Hui Kuo, plaintiff Ching−Yang Kuo, plaintiff Yo−tzu Kuo, plaintiff Yu Wei Kuo, plaintiff Hee Jae Kwon, plaintiff You Young Kwon, plaintiff Hyo Jeong Kwon, plaintiff Hyeong Jin Kwon, plaintiff Song Joo Kwon, plaintiff Yoeun Hwa Kwon, plaintiff Jin Hyeng Kwon, plaintiff Jin Sung Kwon, plaintiff Jen−Tien Lai, plaintiff I−Chun Lai, plaintiff Yeh−Chien Lai, plaintiff Yu Kuei Lai, plaintiff Yen Chih Lai, plaintiff Chen Ju Lai, plaintiff Ying−Ming Lai, plaintiff Ching−Hsiu Lai, plaintiff Chun Wei Lai, plaintiff Yen Ju Lai, plaintiff Sai Yue Lau, plaintiff Wai Yee Lau Leung, plaintiff Hiu Yan Lau, plaintiff King Yin Lau, plaintiff King Yip Lau, plaintiff Chil Ok Lee, plaintiff Je Ho Lee, plaintiff Sang Gyu Lee, plaintiff Sang Jin Lee, plaintiff Sang Heui Lee, plaintiff Dae Yeon Lee, plaintiff Young Ja Lee, plaintiff Hyo Won Lee, plaintiff Hyo Won Lee, plaintiff Eun−Kyung Lee, plaintiff Wook Hyung Lee, plaintiff Jae Kon Lee, plaintiff Ae Kyung Lee, plaintiff Suk Min Lee, plaintiff Suk Il Lee, plaintiff Jung Ja Lee, plaintiff Chang Jin Lee, plaintiff Yoon Suk Lee, plaintiff Kyu Baik Lee, plaintiff Ai Ran Lee, plaintiff Jin Yong Lee, plaintiff Hee Yong Lee, plaintiff Woo Yong Lee, plaintiff Mei−Jung Lee, plaintiff Zin−Pha Li, plaintiff Yien Sough Lee, plaintiff Yung Soon Lee, plaintiff Jee Hoon Lee, plaintiff Yoon Sik Lee, plaintiff Jong Hee Lee, plaintiff Eung Jun Lee, plaintiff Sang Eun Lee, plaintiff Eung Sang Lee, plaintiff Yong Ki Lee, plaintiff Sun Hee Lee, plaintiff Suh Jin Lee, plaintiff Sook Hyun Lee, plaintiff Han Na Lee, plaintiff Sung Joon Lee, plaintiff Sung Hyun Lee, plaintiff Young Cheon Lee, plaintiff Duk Soon Lee, plaintiff Joon Woo Lee, plaintiff Sang Eun Lee, plaintiff Kun Woo Lee, plaintiff Young Ho Lee, plaintiff Hee Sook Lee, plaintiff Seung Jai Lee, plaintiff Seung Min Lee, plaintiff Young Kyu Lee, plaintiff Jeen Ran Lee, plaintiff Se Jong Lee, plaintiff Se Hyup Lee, plaintiff Yun Chang Lee, plaintiff Kyung Soon Lee, plaintiff Koon Cheung Tom Leung, plaintiff Kwai Loi Leung Lee, plaintiff Ho Yin Leung, plaintiff Wing Yin Leung, plaintiff Koon Tai Leung, plaintiff Siu Fong Leung Wong, plaintiff Yi Ting Leung, plaintiff Hiu Wai Leung, plaintiff Chun−Hsiung Liao, plaintiff Shu−Chen Liao, plaintiff Shun−Jen Liao, plaintiff Wei−Lin Liao, plaintiff Pen−Yu Liao, plaintiff Hsiu Fang Liao, plaintiff Yi Chan Liao, plaintiff Yi Chin Liao, plaintiff Wen−Hsien Liao, plaintiff Mei−li Liao, plaintiff Hsuan−Ping Liao, plaintiff I−Ping Liao, plaintiff Hung−Hsiang Liao, plaintiff Pin−Pin Liao, plaintiff Chen−Chin Lin, plaintiff Ching Ming Lin, plaintiff Hou Chou Lin, plaintiff Wen Yuan Lin, plaintiff Chia Kai Lin, plaintiff Shu−Ching Lin, plaintiff Wei Ting Lin, plaintiff Wei Hsuen Lin, plaintiff Yi Ching Lin, plaintiff Chung Nan Lin, plaintiff Ho−Whei Lin, plaintiff Li Lin Lee, plaintiff Chuang−Ju Lin, plaintiff Chuang−Yeh Lin, plaintiff Hsien−Lin Lin, plaintiff Hui−Mei Lin, plaintiff Min−Cheng Lin, plaintiff Chia−Yu Lin, plaintiff Hwa−Hsiung Lin, plaintiff Chin−Ching Lin, plaintiff Szu−Yin Lin, plaintiff Ko−Ting Lin, plaintiff Li Li Lin, plaintiff Tsung Ming Lin, plaintiff You−Sheng Lin, plaintiff Liao Hsiu−Chin Lin, plaintiff Wen Hui Lin, plaintiff Hung−Wei Lin, plaintiff Wei−Hung Lin, plaintiff Ming Ling Lin, plaintiff Kai−Nan Chen, plaintiff Yu−Ching Chen, plaintiff Yu−Hung Lin, plaintiff Chen Yin Lin, plaintiff Chien−Yu Lin, plaintiff Wen−Chien Lin, plaintiff Alice Liu, plaintiff Shang−Fu Liu, plaintiff Mei Chih Liu, plaintiff Yu−Hao Liu, plaintiff Te−Hung Tsai, plaintiff Chiang Ling Tsai, plaintiff Mei−Ling Liu Lo, plaintiff I−Wen Liu, plaintiff Tzu−Hao Liu, plaintiff Yen−Po Liu, plaintiff Shiu−Lan Ma, plaintiff Chi−Hua Tang,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 258 of 288
plaintiff Hao−Hua Tang, plaintiff Hyung Min, plaintiff Young−Sook Min, plaintiff Ji−Young Min, plaintiff Seon−Young Min, plaintiff Se−Young Min, plaintiff Joon Sik Moon, plaintiff Mi Ja Moon, plaintiff Jin Suk Moon, plaintiff Hyun Sun Moon, plaintiff Yong Suk Moon, plaintiff Chi Seung Noh, plaintiff Jung Hee Noh, plaintiff Dong Hyun Noh, plaintiff Hye Rim Noh, plaintiff Min Hyun Noh, plaintiff Chii−Ching Pan, plaintiff Chin−Hua Pan, plaintiff Te−Han Pan, plaintiff Te−Jen Pan, plaintiff Ching−Keun Pan, plaintiff Pei Chun Pan, plaintiff Yi Yang Pan, plaintiff Don Suk Park, plaintiff Yoon Sok Park, plaintiff Jung Woo Park, plaintiff Jae Kwan Park, plaintiff Ae Ryun Park, plaintiff Jang Sun Park, plaintiff Jee Sun Park, plaintiff In Sun Park, plaintiff Seon Og Park, plaintiff Yun Kyung Chung, plaintiff Seung Rye Park, plaintiff Hong Ryong Kim, plaintiff Sun Ae Kim, plaintiff Shin Ae Kim, plaintiff Tae Heup Park, plaintiff Hwa Ja Park, plaintiff Joung June Park, plaintiff Joung Hye Park, plaintiff Young Woo Park, plaintiff Hye Sun Park, plaintiff Hyun Sung Park, plaintiff Hyun Wook Park, plaintiff Raulie D Rodrigo, plaintiff Concepcion V Rodrigo, plaintiff Adrian V Rodrigo, plaintiff Jose Romero, plaintiff Marie Rose Romero, plaintiff Hyuk Hwan Ryoo, plaintiff Ja Hye Ryoo, plaintiff Yung Chan Ryoo, plaintiff Soo Yung Ryoo, plaintiff Ho Jung Seo, plaintiff Hyun Hong Seo, plaintiff Seung Beom Seo, plaintiff Moung Sook Seo, plaintiff Dong Shin Seo, plaintiff Dong Hwan Seo, plaintiff Jeong Hwa Seo, plaintiff Cheng−Hsiung She, plaintiff Hui Wen She, plaintiff Tzu Ming She, plaintiff Heng−Shiang Shih, plaintiff Yao−Meng Shih, plaintiff Kai−Li Shih, plaintiff Myung Seong Shim, plaintiff Chung Hwa Shim, plaintiff Young Hoon Shim, plaintiff Jie Hye Shim, plaintiff Sug Soo Shim, plaintiff Bo Soo Shim, plaintiff Soon Yong Shim, plaintiff Sun Hee Shim, plaintiff Jin Young Shin, plaintiff Chang Yeol Shin, plaintiff Ji Ye Shin, plaintiff Ji Min Shin, plaintiff Moon Soo Shin, plaintiff Kyung Sook Shin, plaintiff Jae Hoon Shin, plaintiff Won Ju Shin, plaintiff Jae Lim Shon, plaintiff Vyacheslav Solomon Shteynberg, plaintiff Svetlana Valentino Shteynberg, plaintiff Denis Vyacheslav Shteynberg, plaintiff Hyun Yong Sim, plaintiff Youn Woo Sim, plaintiff Hyun Jung Sim, plaintiff Jae Hyung Sim, plaintiff Oleg Sitnikov, plaintiff Galsira Sitnikov, plaintiff Maxim Sitnikov, plaintiff Kseniva Sitnikov, plaintiff Stanley S T Siu, plaintiff Ivy H K Siu, plaintiff Vivian Siu, plaintiff In Ju Sohn, plaintiff Ho Joon Sohn, plaintiff Min Jeong Sohn, plaintiff Jee Min Sohn, plaintiff Ching−Fu Su, plaintiff Yu Hua Su, plaintiff Po Hsieh Su, plaintiff Yin Yuan Su, plaintiff Chun−Chen Su, plaintiff Hsueh−Lan Tang, plaintiff Po−Lin Su, plaintiff Po−Wei Su, plaintiff You Ho Suh, plaintiff Mi Ran Suh, plaintiff Dong Kwan Suh, plaintiff Min Sue Suh, plaintiff Yueh−Ching Tao, plaintiff Ru−Ying Tao, plaintiff You−Chen Tao, plaintiff Wan−Hsuan Tao, plaintiff Kwei−You Tao, plaintiff Jorge Alberto Tellez Chaves, plaintiff Martha Consuelo Gomez Tellez, plaintiff Marcela Tellez Gomez, plaintiff Laura Tellez Gomez, plaintiff Chien−Hwa Tong, plaintiff Andres D Toro−Betancur, plaintiff Liliana Isaza, plaintiff Susana Toro−Isaza, plaintiff Paulina Toro−Isaza, plaintiff Dario Toro−Quintero, plaintiff Maria Elena Toro−Hincapie, plaintiff Keng−Mu Tsai, plaintiff Yeu−Jiunn Tsai, plaintiff Fan Zee Eric Tsang, plaintiff Hsiu−Linag Tseng, plaintiff Wen−Hsi Tseng, plaintiff Huan−Min Tseng, plaintiff Tu Hsiu Tsui, plaintiff Chien Mei Tsui, plaintiff Chia Hsiang Tsui, plaintiff Fang Chi Tsui, plaintiff Fang Ching Tsui, plaintiff Po−En Wang, plaintiff Chen Hsiao−Fang Wang, plaintiff Wei Wang, plaintiff Yuk Lan Wang Wong, plaintiff Ming − Wang, plaintiff Dawei Wang, plaintiff Ho Chien Wei, plaintiff Li−Yu Wei, plaintiff Ping−Lun Wei, plaintiff Chia−Chi Wei, plaintiff Chao−Shih Wu, plaintiff Li−Lin Wu, plaintiff Meng−Ju Wu, plaintiff Chen−Jung Wu, plaintiff Li−Cheng Wu, plaintiff Cheng−Han Wu, plaintiff Cheng−Ju Wu, plaintiff Hsian−Ju Wu, plaintiff Mei−Yueh Wu, plaintiff Kun Kuang Wu, plaintiff Pei−Chen Wu, plaintiff Chia−Chen Wu, plaintiff Yu−Fen Wu, plaintiff Yang − Wu, plaintiff Ching−Chun Wu, plaintiff Chun−Chieh Wu, plaintiff Jen−Tzong Yang, plaintiff Fen−Lan Yang, plaintiff Yu−Ling Yang, plaintiff Man−Chiou Yang, plaintiff Pen−Po Yang, plaintiff Jen−Hsing Yang, plaintiff Hsin−Ti Yang, plaintiff Wen−Rong Yeh, plaintiff Chih Yu Yeh, plaintiff Tsai Chu Yeh, plaintiff Chia Chu Yeh, plaintiff So Hung Yeh, plaintiff Ki Sun Yim, plaintiff Young Sook Yim, plaintiff Chong Hwa Yim, plaintiff Yon Jung Yim, plaintiff Dong Khun Yoo, plaintiff Ha Young Yoo, plaintiff Seung Han Yoo, plaintiff Sang Won Yoo, plaintiff Su Jung Yoo, plaintiff Ho Yang Yoo, plaintiff Young Ae Yoo, plaintiff Sung Yoo, plaintiff Jin Hwan Yoo, plaintiff Hyung Sik Yoon, plaintiff Chan−Kyung Park, plaintiff In−Sub Yoon, plaintiff Min−Sub Yoon, plaintiff In Soo Yoon, plaintiff Kyung Deog Yoon, plaintiff Byung Hee Yoon, plaintiff Ji En Yoon, plaintiff Kwang Hee Yoon, plaintiff Hak−Woo Kim, plaintiff Hak−Sun Kim, plaintiff Seung Rok Yoon, plaintiff Young Jan Yoon, plaintiff Jung Sang Yoon, plaintiff Jae Yeon Yoon, plaintiff Yeo Bok Youn, plaintiff Cin Ok Youn, plaintiff

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 259 of 288

07/16/2001 07/24/2001
08/06/2001 08/08/2001 08/20/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 03/25/2002 05/03/2002
01/10/2003 07/28/2003
08/11/2003 08/11/2003

Chul Hwoan Youn, plaintiff Young Hwoan Youn, plaintiff Sheng−Chun Yu, plaintiff Li Chin Yu, plaintiff Kai Li Yu, plaintiff Chih Yi Yu, plaintiff Chao Yuan, plaintiff Ai Guo Han, plaintiff Xiaoying Yuan, plaintiff Suk Shin Yun, plaintiff Hae Sil Yun, plaintiff Yeo Wool Yun, plaintiff Yeo Sang Yun, plaintiff Alabama Almark, plaintiff Alabama Bailey, plaintiff Alabama Coosa Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Dallas Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Denim Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Millry Ltd, plaintiff Alabama Pro Sports, plaintiff Alabama River Run, plaintiff C&W Hotel Limited, plaintiff Delaware Milford, plaintiff Georgia Almark, plaintiff Louisiana LaSevilla, plaintiff Mississippi Bass, plaintiff Mississippi Magee, plaintiff Mississippi MCT, plaintiff Mississippi Neely, plaintiff Mississippi Tees, plaintiff National Steak Rest, plaintiff NC K−Barb Limited, plaintiff NC Russell−Harvelle, plaintiff PA Loungewear, plaintiff Recap Fund I Limited, plaintiff Recap Fund V Limited, plaintiff RPC Fund I Limited, plaintiff SC Manufacturing, plaintiff TN Lafayette Limited, plaintiff WTC Fund I Limited, plaintiff US Export Fund I, plaintiff Yi Yuan Chiang to 9th C/A from Dist. Court jgm fld 5/4/01, ent 5/7/01 [59−2] (cc: Ira J. Kurzban; Marc Van Der Hout; C Daniel Levy; Heather Phillips) Fee: Paid. (weap) (Entered: 07/03/2001)
73 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 10/16/00, 3/21/01 re transcript [43−1] CR: I. Nakamura (app) (Entered: 07/16/2001)
74 NOTICE OF APPEAL by defendant USA to 9th C/A from Dist. Court Minute Ord fld 6/12/01 [71−1], Jgm fld 5/4/01 & ent 5/7/01 [59−2] (cc: Heather Phillips, Office of Immigration Litigation, U. S. Department of Justice; Alejandro N. Mayorkas, U. S. Attorney; Leon W. Weidman, AUSA; Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A.; Marc Van Der Hout; Daniel C. Levy) Fee: Government Waived. (pjap) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
75 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and ordering form for dates: 10/16/00, re transcript [43−1], 3/27/01. CR: I. Nakamura (fvap) (Entered: 08/06/2001)
76 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number appeal [72−1] 01−56266. (cbr) (Entered: 08/08/2001)
77 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number appeal [74−1] 01−56379. (ghap) (Entered: 08/20/2001)
78 RECEIPT OF TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 10/16/00, 3/27/01 (Re: [72−1]) CR: Irene Nakamura. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/16/00. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 3/27/01. (wdc) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
79 ORDER FROM USCA on 3/15/02,a telphone conf was held before circuit Mediator C. Lewis Ross. 01−56266 & 01−56379 (ghap) (Entered: 03/27/2002)
80 ORDER FROM USCA: Plfs' mot for ext of time to file first X−app brief GR. First x−app brief due 6/13/02; 2nd x−app brief due 7/23/02; 3rd x−app brief due 8/22/02; & optional reply brief due 14 days from svc of 3rd brief. (01−56266, 01−56379) (pjap) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
81 CLERK'S record on appeal transmitted to Circuit (01−56266) vols: 5 transcripts: 3 (1 brown folder document #62) (weap) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
Lodged certified copy of 9thCCA judgment, judgment of district court is hereby affirmed, reversed and remanded. (01−56266, 01−56379) (ghap) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
82 RECORD on appeal returned from U.S. Court of Appeals vols: 1 thru 5 transcripts: 3, 1 brown folder. (dlu) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
83 MINUTES (In Chambers) by Judge George H. King: The court orders that the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Affirming in part, reversing in part and Remanding is hereby filed and spread upon the minutes of this USDC. Reopening the case . The case is set for status conference on 9/22/03 at 9:30 . CR: N/A (mg) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 260 of 288

08/11/2003 09/19/2003 10/27/2003
11/25/2003 12/01/2003 01/26/2004 04/26/2004
05/10/2004
07/15/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 08/25/2004 09/07/2004

84 CERTIFIED COPY of judgment from USCA, affirming, reversing and remanding the decision of the District Court [Appeal [72−1] (No. 01−56266) (mg) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
85 MINUTES by Judge George H. King: The parties shall file a joint status report with the court within 21 days hereof. The status conference is continued to 10/27/03 at 1:30 . CR: (None) (mg) (Entered: 09/22/2003)
86 MINUTES: status conference held The Court and counsel confer regarding the USCA mandate affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part the decision of the District Court. Counsel is instructed to file a joint status report within 30 days hereof, addressing the issues posed by the Court to counsel at the hearing by Judge George H. King CR: John Turman (bg) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
87 JOINT MOTION for a 60−day continuance to file the 11/26/03 Joint Status Report pursuant to this court's 10/27/03 minute order ; No hearing date requested; Lodged Order (mg) (Entered: 12/01/2003)
88 ORDER by Judge George H. King granting motion for a 60−day continuance to file the 11/26/03 Joint Status Report pursuant to this court's 10/27/03 minute order [87−1]. The new filing deadline for the Joint Status Report shall be 1/26/04 (mg) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
89 JOINT STATUS REPORT pursuant to this Court's 12/1/03 Order (mg, ) (Entered: 02/02/2004)
90 MINUTES OF Proceedings before Judge George H. King : Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for a status conference on 5/10/2004 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above case shall appear on date and time specified above. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (bg, ) (Entered: 04/27/2004)
91 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: PROCEEDINGS: STATUS CONFERENCE. Matter called, parties present. Court conducts stauts conference with counsel regarding status of case. Counsel shall meet and confer as directed by the Court within sixty (60) days hereof and: 1) lodge stipulation for the filing of a proposed amended Consilidated Class Action Complaint or; 2) filed a duly noticed Motion for leave to amend in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: John Turman. (jp, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
92 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King allowing plaintiffs until 8/25/04 to submit the proposed Second Amended Complaint and to file their Motion to Amend Complaint, Motion for Class Certification, and Motion for Consolidation.(mg, ) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
93 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Consolidation filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
94 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
95 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend complaint filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Lodged consolidated amended complaint. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
96 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Amend 95 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
97 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for class certification filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
98 MEMORANDUM of points and authorities in Support of MOTION to Certify Class 97 filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
101 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Amend/Correct 95 , MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 , and response to MOTION to Certify Class 97 , filed by defendant United States of America. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 261 of 288

09/13/2004 09/14/2004 10/04/2004 10/08/2004
10/22/2004
10/22/2004
11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/02/2004 11/10/2004 11/10/2004

100 REPLY to response to defendants opposition to plaintiffs MOTION to Amend/Correct 95 ; MOTION to Consolidate Cases 93 , MOTION to Certify Class 97 , filed by plaintiffs. (mg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
99 MINUTES OF Proceedings: 93 MOTION to Consolidate Cases, 95 MOTION to Amend Complaint 97 MOTION to Certify Class. (In Chambers). Counsel of Record, are hereby notified that on the courts own motion, hearing on the above matters set 9/20/04, are taken off calendar and reset for 10/13/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. Counsel for the parties shall appear on date and time specified aboveCourt Reporter: Not Reported. (bg, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
102 NOTICE OF NON−COMPLAINCE by Government Agents and REQUEST for Hearing on this issue on October 13, 2004 filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
103 MINUTES before Judge George H. King : Plaintiffs NOTICE and REQUEST for Hearing re Non−Complaince by Government Agents. On October 4, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Non−Compliance by Government Agents (the "Notice") and Request for Hearing of the Notic eon October 13, 2004 ("Request"). Plaintiffs are advised that, pursuant to FRCP 7(b)(1), " 1 n application to the Court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be thereof, and shall set forth the relief or other sought...." In light of Rule 7(b)(1), we will not address Plaintiffs allegations contained in the Notice unless Plaintiffs file a notice of motion and motion alleging the same. Plaintiff Request 102 , therefore, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: None. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
104 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order of Mandamus to Address Non−compliance by Government Agents due to their failure to issue I−551 stamps filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership. Motion set for hearing on 11/15/2004 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
105 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Order of Mandamus to Address Non−compliance by Government Agents due to their failure to issue I−551 stamps 104 filed by plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
106 RECEIPT OF REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 10/27/03, 5/10/04 Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
107 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 10/27/03. Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
108 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 5/10/04. Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 11/03/2004)
109 MINUTES: Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation; class certification; and leave to amend complaint. Counsel of record, are hereby notified that on the court's own motion, hearing on the above matters is set for 11/15/05, at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for the parties shall appear on the date and time specified above. 93 , 95 , 97 , Honorable George H. King.Court Reporter: None. (bp, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
110 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: Telephone Status Conference. In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs MOTION 104 is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. The Court will consider Defendant responses at the 11/15/2004, hearing on Plaintiffs earlier motions, ant will either set appropriate deadlines or order Defendant to fiel a opposition to Plaintiffs Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: None. (jp, ) (Entered: 11/15/2004)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 262 of 288

11/15/2004 12/15/2004
12/15/2004
12/15/2004 12/15/2004 12/15/2004

111 MINUTES before Judge George H. King: MOTION by plaintiff to Consolidate 93 , MOTION for Class Certification 97 ; MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint 95 . Matter called, parties present. Court hears oral argument from counsel for the parties. The Court has read and considered the plaintiff motion for leave to amend and for the reasons stated on the record the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file new motion for leave to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Court defers ruling on motion for class certification and for consolidation. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: John Turman. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
112 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION for Calss Certification, following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
113 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Calss Certification, following November 15, 2004 Hearing 112 filed by plaintiffs Ja Kyung Gu, Hsien−Ming Hsieh, Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
114 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION to Consolidate following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
115 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION to Consolidate following November 15, 2004 Hearing 114 filed by plaintiffs. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
116 NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint following November 15, 2004 Hearing filed by plaintiffs. Motion set for hearing on 1/10/2005 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 263 of 288

12/15/2004 12/15/2004
12/29/2004 01/10/2005 01/14/2005
01/25/2005 01/26/2005 01/26/2005 02/17/2005 03/03/2005

117 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES in Support of MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint following November 15, 2004 Hearing 116 filed by plaintiffs. (jp, ) (Entered: 12/16/2004)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED re Consolidated Second Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief submitted by Plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership and Yi Yuan Chiang. (yl, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
118 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King that MOTION for Leave to Amended Complaint 116 , MOTION for Consolidation 114 and MOTION for Class Certificaion 112 filed 12/15/2004, and currently pending before this Honorable Court, from 1/10/2005 to 1/24/2005 at 09:30 AM. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
119 OPPOSITION to plaintiffs RENEW MOTION to Amend Complaint, MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Response to Motion for Calss Certification following November 15, 2004 Hearing 114 , 116 filed by defendant United States of America. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
120 REPLY to defendant Opposition to Plaintiffs RENEWED MOTIONS TO Amended Complaint 116 andConsolidate Cases 114 and Response to RENEWED MOTION to for Class Certification following November 15, 2004, hearing 112 filed by plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yu Kuei Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (jp, ) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
123 STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding extension of hearing date to 2/14/05 by Judge George H. King : MOTION to Certify Class currently pending 1/24/05, at 9:30 a.m. to Monday, February 14, 2005 upon the Courts consideration and approval 112 . (ca, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
121 RECEIPT OF REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 11/15/04 Court Reporter: John Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
122 TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings held on 11/15/04. Court Reporter: John G. Turman. (ghap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
124 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS before Judge George H. King: MOTION to Class Certification 112 , MOTION for Consolidation 114 , MOTION for Leave to Amend 116 . With the concurrence of the Court and counsel, hearing on the above motions are CONTINUED from 2/14/2005 to 3/14/2005 at 09:30 AM., in order to give counsel additional time to try and reach a resolution of the above matters. IT IS SO ORDERED. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (jp, ) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
125 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Relating to plaintiffs Estoppel Claim filed by plaintiffs Yoon Sik Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Jin Suk Moon, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Alabama Almark

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 264 of 288

03/09/2005
08/29/2005
08/30/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005 10/05/2005
10/17/2005

Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership. (jp, ) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
126 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS:Telephone Status Conference held before Judge George H. King : Plaintiff's renewed motions for leave to amend complaint, consolidation and class certification filed 12/15/05 re 112 , 114 , and 116 are taken off calender and will be re−calendared for hearing at a later date to be determined at our discretion.Court Reporter: none. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
127 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King : Renewed Motion to Amend 116 is GRANTED; MOTION to Consolidate Cases 114 , is GRANTED. Ahn is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice; and MOTION to amend complaint to clarify their estoppel claim 112 , is GRANTED. At this time, however, we decline to rule on plaintiffs' certification issued as provided for herein, we will order plaintiff to file an amended complaint in conformity with this order and any order approving class certification. Court Reporter: none. **see document for further details** (pbap, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
PLACED IN FILE − NOT USED pursuant to the Court's order of 11/15/04 re Proposed Consolidated Amended Complaint; lodged 8/25/04 submitted by plaintiff, Jae Bum Ahn. (bh, ) (Entered: 08/30/2005)
128 AGREED MOTION for 14 Day Extension of Time to File New Class Definition filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang et al and Defendant United States of America et al. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Leon W Weidman is (213) 894−7819. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Anthony Nicastro is (202) 616−4975. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Ira J Kurzban is (305) 444−3503. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney Marc Van Der Hout is (415) 981−3003. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
FAX number for Attorney David B Gardner is (323) 651−5938. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
129 ORDER by Judge George H. King : Granting 128 Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File new joint class definition on or before 10/10/05. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
130 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING Agreed Motion for extension of time submitted by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang et al, and Defendants United States of America received on 10/5/05 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
132 STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge George H. King : Re Joint Formulation of New Class Definition Filed Pursuant to This Court's 8/29/05, Order. **see document for further details**(pbap, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 265 of 288

10/18/2005 10/21/2005
11/04/2005 12/06/2005 12/06/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/14/2005 12/27/2005 01/06/2006

131 MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King Re: Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint within fourteen days of this order. Defendant shall be deemed served on the date of the filing of the second amended complaint and shall answer or otherwise respond within ten days thereafter.Court Reporter: none. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/18/2005)
133 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant United States of America amending Amended Complaint, 12 ,filed by Plaintiff Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership. (pbap, ) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
134 ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint 133 for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief filed by defendant United States of America.(pbap, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
136 MOTION for Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer with Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Plaintiffs Chang, Wen−Wan etc. Motion set for hearing on 1/9/2006 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
137 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION for Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang etc. Motion set for hearing on 1/9/2006 at 09:30 AM before Honorable George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
135 ORDER by Judge George H. King Setting Scheduling Conference. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 1/30/2006. Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/2006 01:30 PM.(pbap, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
139 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery/Motion Seeking Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery submitted by Defendant United States of America received on 12/6/2005 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(yl, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)
138 NOTICE of Continuance of MOTION for Leave to to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 reset to 1/9/2006, 10:00 a.m. before Judge Wistrich in Courtroom 690. (yb, ) (Entered: 12/15/2005)
141 RESPONSE to Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Magistrate Judge's December 14, 2005 Order filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. (pbap, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
140 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Andrew J. Wistrich RE: MOTION for Leave to Renew Motion to Compel Discovery Following Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Answer 136 . Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the December 14, 2005 calendaring notice is granted, and the January 9, 2006 hearing date is vacated. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal after the February 13, 2006 scheduling conference. See document for further details. (yb, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 266 of 288

01/30/2006
02/01/2006
02/06/2006 02/27/2006 02/27/2006 04/04/2006 04/06/2006

144 Report of the Parties Planning Meeting filed by Plaintiffs Hsien−Ming Hsieh, Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hye Ra Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Tsung−Ming Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Louisiana LaSevilla Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. (shb, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
143 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Reschedule Hearing Date filed by Plaintiffs Shu−Chuan Hsieh, Pei−Chen Hsieh, Pei−Shan Hsieh, Sung Duck Kong, Hyun Jung Kong, Min Suk Kong, Yeh−Chien Lai, Yu Kuei Lai, Yen Chih Lai, Chen Ju Lai, Yoon Sik Lee, Jong Hee Lee, Eung Jun Lee, Sang Eun Lee, Eung Sang Lee, Wen−Wan Chang, Cheng−Hsiung She, Hui Wen She, Tzu Ming She, Chiao−Ying Chang, Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Delaware Milford Limited Partnership, Georgia Almark Limited Partnership, Mississippi Bass Limited Partnership, Mississippi Magee Limited Partnership, Mississippi MCT Limited Partnership, Mississippi Neely Limited Partnership, Mississippi Tees Limited Partnership, National Steak Restaurants Limited Partnership, North Carolina K−Barb Limited Partnership, North Carolina Russell−Harvelle Hosiery Limited Partnership, Pennsylvania Loungewear Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership, South Carolina Manufacturing Limited Partnership, Tennessee Lafayette Limited Partnership, WTC Fund I Limited Partnership, United States Export Fund I Limited Partnership, Yi Yuan Chiang. Motion set for hearing on 2/27/2006 at 01:30 PM before Judge George H. King. (shb, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
142 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King. The court is in receipt of plaintiff's unopposed motion to rescheduled the hearing dae. Motion is granted. Scheduling Conference set for 2/13/06 is contined to 2/27/2006 01:30 PM. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above matter shall appear on date and time specified herein.Court Reporter: not reported. (pbap, ) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
145 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King. Court conducts scheduling conference with counsel, and eners the following scheduling order: (1) All discovery is stayed for 30 days to allow the parties to exhaust any settlement discussion. (2) All Discovery due by 8/15/06. (3) The Parties shall designate their expert witnesses no later than 7/14/06; rebuttal expert witnesses by no later than 7/28/06. (4) The parties shall comply with Local Rule 16−14 by no later than 8/25/06.Court Reporter: n/a. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
Set Deadlines: Discovery cut−off 8/15/2006. Expert Witness List due by 7/14/2006. (pbap, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
146 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days filed by defendants United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
147 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days submitted by Defendant United States of America received on 4/4/06 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 267 of 288

04/06/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006 07/17/2006 12/08/2006 12/11/2006
12/11/2006
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/14/2007 03/14/2007 04/24/2007 04/25/2007
04/26/2007 05/14/2007

Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
148 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS held before Judge George H. King GRANTING Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION to Stay Discovery for an Additional 30 days 146 . All discovery in the action is hereby stayed for thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Court Reporter: not reported. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/07/2006)
150 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al and Defendants United States of America et al. Motion set for hearing on 7/31/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
151 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants Wen−Wan Chang, United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 7/31/2006 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. lodged order(pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
149 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery dates and Designation of Experts for 120 Days.(pbap, ) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
152 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days filed by plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al, and defendants United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
153 NOTICE OF DOCUMENT DISCREPANCIES AND ORDER by Judge George H. King ORDERING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days submitted by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang and defendants received on 12/8/06 to be filed and processed; filed date to be the date the document was stamped Received but not Filed with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
154 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING JOINT MOTION for Extension of Discovery Dates and Designation of Experts for 90 Days 152 . The discovery dates and designation of expert dates previously issued in this Court's Minute Orders [see Docket Entries 145 and 148 and 149] are hereby extended for 90 days. (pbap, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
156 JOINT MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days (jag, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
157 NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days 156 (jag, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
155 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George H. King, ORDERING Letter submitted by Jointly received on 3/13/07 is to be filed and processed. The filing date is ORDERED to be the date the document was stamped "received but not filed" with the Clerk.(pbap, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
158 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING MOTION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to 45 days 156 ; RE [145, 148 and 149]. (pbap, ) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
160 NOTICE of Expert Witness for plaintiffs filed by plaintiffs. (ca ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
159 NOTICE of Second Expert Witness for Plaintiffs filed by Plaintiffs Alabama Almark Limited Partnership, Alabama Bailey Limited Partnership, Alabama Coosa Limited Partnership, Alabama Dallas Limited Partnership, Alabama Denim Limited Partnership, Alabama Millry Limited Partnership, Alabama Pro Sports Limited Partnership, Alabama River Run Limited Partnership, C&W Hotel Limited Partnership, Recap Fund I Limited Partnership, Recap Fund V Limited Partnership, RPC Fund I Limited Partnership. (et) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
161 NOTICE re Designation of Expert Witness filed by defendant United States of America. (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
162 JOINT MOTION for Mediation filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al,and defendant United States of America.Motion set for hearing on 6/4/2007 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 268 of 288

05/14/2007 05/25/2007 06/01/2007 06/28/2007 07/13/2007
10/03/2007 10/03/2007 10/11/2007
10/25/2007 11/13/2007 02/05/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 02/06/2008

163 NOTICE OF MOTION re JOINT MOTION for Mediation 162 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang et al, Defendant United States of America. Lodged order(pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
164 ORDER by Judge George H. King GRANTING MOTION for Mediation 162 . *see document for further details* (pbap, ) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
165 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King. Settlement Conference set for 7/12/2007 09:30 AM.Confidential Settlement Statement (IN CAMERA) due by 7/2/2007. (pbap) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
166 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King. Settlement Conference was originally scheduled for 7/12/07 is continued to 7/13/2007 09:30 AM. Counsel shall comply with the filing of the parties' confidential settlement statements as indicated in the order of June 01, 2007.(pbap) (Entered: 06/29/2007)
167 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King. Parties make their appearances. Also present are the authorized representatives on behalf of the government. The court conducts settlement conference with the parties. Plaintiff shall within 130 days hereof, file a status report as directed by the Court. Court Reporter: not reported.(pbap) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
168 Plaintiff's MOTION for Emergency Telephonic Status Conference Relating to Settlement filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 10/13/2007)
169 NOTICE Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Telephonic Status Conferencce Relating to Settlement filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 10/13/2007)
170 MINUTES OF EMERGENCY TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge George H. King : The Court conducts telephonic status conference with counsel. Government counsel advised the court that the government (at the agency) is in the process of considering various options that it will present to the plaintiffs next week. Court directs Mr. Molina to cause the agency to have its position (including specific terms) in writing to plaintiffs counsel by the close of business on Friday, October 19, 2007. Court advised Mr. Kurzban that he should still attend the meetings with his clients this weekend, and advise them of, among other things, that representation. If a need were to arise for counsel to have a conference with the court, counsel shall notify the court clerk. Otherwise, we will look forward to the November 12, 2007 status report as previously ordered. (see document for more details)Court Reporter: None.(bh) (Entered: 10/16/2007)
172 Mail Returned addressed to Daniel Levy, Bernard P Wolfsdorf Law Offices, 17383 Sunset Blvd, Suite 120, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 (vh) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
171 REPORT to the Court Pursuant to the Court's Order of July 13, 2007 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (es) (Entered: 11/15/2007)
179 NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Judge George H. King, ORDERING notice of motion for order to show cause, etc. received on 2/4/2008 is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: Pursuant to G.O. 07−08 case is designated for electronic filing. (ca) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
173 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
174 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
175 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Subclass filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
176 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 269 of 288

02/06/2008
02/06/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008 02/11/2008
02/11/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 02/25/2008 03/03/2008 03/03/2008 03/18/2008 06/23/2008

177 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 proposed 3d Am Complaint# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I part 1# 11 Exhibit I part 2# 12 Exhibit I part 3# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P# 20 Exhibit Q# 21 Exhibit R# 22 Exhibit S# 23 Exhibit T# 24 Exhibit U# 25 Exhibit V# 26 Exhibit W# 27 Exhibit X# 28 Exhibit Y# 29 Exhibit Z# 30 Exhibit AA# 31 Exhibit BB# 32 Exhibit CC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
178 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
180 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 , MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 , MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 Motion to Stirke filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
181 Amendment to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR HEARING MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
182 Amendment to MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR HEARING MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
183 Amendment to MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MARCH 10, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 proposed 3d Am Complaint# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I (part 1)# 11 Exhibit I (part 2)# 12 Exhibit I (part 3)# 13 Exhibit J# 14 Exhibit K# 15 Exhibit L# 16 Exhibit M# 17 Exhibit N# 18 Exhibit O# 19 Exhibit P# 20 Exhibit Q# 21 Exhibit R# 22 Exhibit S# 23 Exhibit T# 24 Exhibit U# 25 Exhibit V# 26 Exhibit W# 27 Exhibit X# 28 Exhibit Y# 29 Exhibit Z# 30 Exhibit AA# 31 Exhibit BB# 32 Exhibit CC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
184 OPPOSITION Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Motions filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
185 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify Subclass 175 , MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
186 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Nicastro, Anthony) (Entered: 02/25/2008)
187 Mail Returned addressed to Daniel Levy re Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order − Rejecting, 179 (es) (Entered: 02/28/2008)
188 REPLY in support MOTION for Sanctions for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Defendant 173 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
189 REPLY in support MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT 177 AND MOTION TO CERTIFY A SUBCLASS 175 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
190 NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Affidavit of Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. filed by plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/18/2008)
191 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King re: (1) Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Notice of Motions, (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint 177 , (3) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass 175 , and (4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 270 of 288

07/22/2008 07/22/2008
07/23/2008 07/25/2008
07/28/2008 08/02/2008 08/02/2008 08/05/2008 08/07/2008

183 . Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Notice of Motions is hereby DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. If Plaintiffs still wish to seek leave to amend, and can do so consistent with Rule 11, they are ORDERED to lodge a new proposed TAC and file a motion to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Plaintiffs' failure to lodge a proposed TAC and file a motion to amend in compliance with this order will be deemed their admission that they do not seek to amend to add claims based on unreasonable delay under the APA, and no further amendments based on this theory will be allowed. Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed is hereby DENIED. (ps) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
193 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 8/18/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
194 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEFENDANT all defendants amending Amended Complaint,,,,,, 133 filed pursuant to this Court's Order dated June 23, 2008,filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I part 1, # 10 Exhibit I part 2, # 11 Exhibit I part 3, # 12 Exhibit I part 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Declaration Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF, # 36 Exhibit GG)(Kurzban, Ira) Modified on 8/6/2008 (ab). *****DOCUMENT STRICKEN************ (Entered: 07/22/2008)
195 EXHIBIT Filed filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Notice of filing corrected Exhibit S as to Amended Complaint,,, 194 . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S (corrected))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
196 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Third Amended Complaint 194 not approved for filing, should have been filed as an exhibit to the Notice of Motion to Amend 193 , and should be filed manually at the Intake Counter since it is an initiating pleading. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
197 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. correcting Amended Complaint,,, 194 (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
198 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Gjon Juncaj on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 08/02/2008)
199 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and to Certify a Subclass Pursuant to this Court's Order Dated June 23, 2008 Opposition re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 193 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 08/02/2008)
200 ORDER by Judge George H. King the document is stricken and counsel is orderd to file an amended or corrected document by Friday, August 8, 2008 RE: Amended Complaint,,, 194 , Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112), Notice of Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112) 196 (ab) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
201 NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Plaintiffs attaching Proposed Third Amended Complaint and Exhibits re Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B), Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B) 200 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, # 2 Exhibit A to Proposed TAC, # 3 Exhibit B to Proposed TAC, # 4 Exhibit C to Proposed TAC, # 5 Exhibit D to Proposed TAC, # 6 Exhibit E to Proposed TAC, # 7 Exhibit F to Proposed TAC, # 8

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 271 of 288

08/07/2008
08/11/2008 08/14/2008 08/14/2008 09/02/2008
10/02/2008

Exhibit G to Proposed TAC, # 9 Exhibit H to Proposed TAC, # 10 Exhibit I (part 1) to proposed TAC, # 11 Exhibit I (part 2) to proposed TAC, # 12 Exhibit I (part 3) to proposed TAC, # 13 Exhibit I (part 4) to proposed TAC, # 14 Exhibit J to Proposed TAC, # 15 Exhibit K to Proposed TAC, # 16 Exhibit L to Proposed TAC, # 17 Exhibit M to Proposed TAC, # 18 Exhibit N to Proposed TAC, # 19 Exhibit O to Proposed TAC, # 20 Exhibit P to Proposed TAC, # 21 Exhibit Q to Proposed TAC, # 22 Exhibit R to Proposed TAC, # 23 Exhibit S (corrected) to Proposed TAC, # 24 Exhibit T to Proposed TAC, # 25 Exhibit U to Proposed TAC, # 26 Exhibit V to Proposed TAC, # 27 Exhibit W to Proposed TAC, # 28 Exhibit X to Proposed TAC, # 29 Exhibit Y to Proposed TAC, # 30 Exhibit Z to Proposed TAC, # 31 Exhibit AA to Proposed TAC, # 32 Exhibit BB to Proposed TAC, # 33 Exhibit CC to Proposed TAC, # 34 Exhibit DD to Proposed TAC, # 35 Exhibit EE to Proposed TAC, # 36 Exhibit FF to Proposed TAC, # 37 Exhibit GG to Proposed TAC)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
202 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Document #200, document was premature to indicated that the third amended complaint should be filed by August 8, 2008; Court has to grant leave to file the third amended complaint before it can be e−filed. RE: Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B), Response By Court to Notice of Deficiencies (G−112B) 200 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (ab) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2008: # 1 Notice of Clerical error) (ab). (Entered: 08/07/2008)
203 REPLY in support Renewed MOTION to AMEND TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY SUBCLASS PURSUANT TO THIS COURTS ORDER DATED JUNE 23, 2008 193 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/11/2008)
204 First NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Adam Laurence Goldman on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
205 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge George H. King: On the Court's own motion, Plaintiff's Renewed MOTION for Leave to AMEND 193 , noticed for hearing on August 18, 2008, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument. The hearing date is VACATED (bh) (Entered: 08/14/2008)
209 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding (1) Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for leave to Amend complaint and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Subclass 193 . Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint is hereby DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiffs will have one more opportunity to amend their complaint. If Plaintiffs still wish to seek leave to amend, and can do so consistent with Rule 11, they are ORDERED to lodge a new proposed TAC and file a motion to amend within thirty (30) days hereof. Plaintiffs failure to lodge a proposed TAC and file a motion to amend in compliance with this Order will be deemed their admission that they do not seek to amend to add claims based on unreasonable delay under the APA, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), or 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c)and no further amendments based on these theories will be allowed. In that event, we will proceed on the Second Amended Complaint as the operative pleading in this action. Similarly, if Plaintiffs attempt to file another TAC and that complaint is deemed inadequate as well, we will proceed on the SecondAmended Complaint as the operative pleading in this action. Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Subclass is hereby DENIED, without prejudice IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King (ir) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
211 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/3/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed TAC following Order of September 2, 2008, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I PART 1, # 11 Exhibit I PART 2, # 12 Exhibit I PART 3, # 13 Exhibit I PART 4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 Exhibit CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE,

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 272 of 288

10/02/2008 10/20/2008 10/27/2008 10/31/2008
11/06/2008 11/06/2008
11/10/2008 11/12/2008 11/12/2008 11/13/2008

# 36 Exhibit FF)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
212 MEMORANDUM in Support of Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A TO MEMO OF PTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 2 Exhibit Exh B to Memo of pts and authorities)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
213 Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Following This Court's Order of September 2, 2008 Defendant's Opposition re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit Two, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/20/2008)
214 REPLY in support of Renewed MOTION to AMEND COMPLAINT FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 211 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
215 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: re: Renewed MOTION to AMEND 211 . On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, noticed for hearing on November 3, 2008, is taken off calendar and will be taken under submission without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated.IT IS SO ORDERED. (bh) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
216 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Plaintiffs' Reneweed Motion for leave to Amend complaint following this Court's 9/2/08 Order 211 is hereby GRANTED, and the Third Amended Complaint is deemed filed and served on Defendant in the above−captioned action as of this date. Defendant SHALL respond to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days hereof IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
217 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER held before Judge George H. King re: Third Amended Complaint 194 : Because Plaintiffs did not correctly lodge a Third Amended Complaint, the portion of our November 6, 2008, Order 216 where we deemed filed Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint and ordered Defendant to respond within thirty days is VACATED. Counsel for Plaintiffs are ORDERED to manually file a Third Amended Complaint in accordance with General Order 08−02, and to name all plaintiffs and defendants in the caption part of the case within seven(7) days. Defendants SHALL respond to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of it being filed. (bm) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
218 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and for Clarification filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
219 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and for Clarification 218 was not submitted with a proposed order as a separate attachment to the Notice of Motion. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
220 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint and clarification filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Order))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/12/2008)
223 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants United States of America amending Second Amended Complaint 133 filed by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, part 1, # 10 Exhibit I, part 2, # 11 Exhibit I, part 3, # 12 Exhibit I, part 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 273 of 288

12/08/2008 12/11/2008 01/08/2009 01/09/2009 01/09/2009 01/13/2009
01/20/2009 01/20/2009 01/21/2009
01/21/2009 01/26/2009
01/28/2009

W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y, # 29 Exhibit Z, # 30 Exhibit AA, # 31 Exhibit BB, # 32 Exhibit CC, # 33 Exhibit DD, # 34 Exhibit EE, # 35 Exhibit FF)(ir) (Entered: 11/14/2008)
225 Joint STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to January 14, 2009 re Amended Complaint,,, 223 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 12/08/2008)
226 ORDER by Judge George H. King regarding Stipulation to Extend the due date for Defendants to file their response to the Third Amended complaint in this action to 1/14/09 225 is GRANTED. (ir) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
227 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims, EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj, # 3 Declaration of Kristie Krebs, # 4 Proposed Order)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
228 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS 227 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
229 REPLY EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand to USCIS 227 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
230 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Defendant's EX PARTE APPLICATION to Stay Case pending Naturalization Application Processing of Category 2 Claims, and to Remand to USCIS 227 . Defendant has not provided an adequate explanation as to why the present Application cannot be filed as a properly noticed motion, it is hereby DENIED. Defendant may bring a properly noticed motion requesting both a stay of Category 2 claims and/or a remand of Category 3 claims if it so chooses. Accordingly, Defendant will be given an additional seven (7) days to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint by IT IS SO ORDERED Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
231 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 3/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
232 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
233 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part, MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part, MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 2/23/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order of the Northern District of California, # 2 Declaration of Kristie Krebs, # 3 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
234 ANSWER to Amended Complaint,,, 223 filed by Defendant United States of America.(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
235 STIPULATION for Hearing re MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang.(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
236 NOTICE OF LODGING filed NOTICE OF LODGING PROPOSED ORDER re Stipulation for Hearing, 235 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/28/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 274 of 288

01/29/2009 02/09/2009
02/10/2009 03/02/2009 03/02/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/26/2009
03/26/2009
03/31/2009

237 ORDER by Judge George H. King Resetting Hearing on all Pending Motions for March 2, 2009 in Keeping With Stipulation 235 . It Is Hereby Ordered that the parties' pending motions, to wit, Plaintiffs' MOTION to certify two subclasses 231 and Defendant's MOTION to dismiss, in part, remand in part, and stay in part 233 , shall be heard on 3/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (mg) (Entered: 02/02/2009)
238 STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion To Certify Two Subclasses and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss In Part, Remand In Part, and Stay In Part from March 2, 2009 to March 16, 2009 Re: MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gjon Juncaj, # 2 Proposed Order)(Juncaj, Gjon) (Entered: 02/09/2009)
239 ORDER by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs' motion to certify two subclasses 231 and Defendant's motion to dismiss in part, remand in part and stay in part 233 from continued from Monday, 3/2/09 at 9:30 am to Monday, 3/30/09 at 9:30 a.m.. The parties' respective oppositions to each Motion shall be due on or before Monday, 3/2/09, and the parties' respective replies shall be due on or before Monday, 3/9/09. Stipulation is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter the hearing on the Court's calendar. (ir) (Entered: 02/11/2009)
243 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang, et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
244 Defendant's Opposition re: MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
245 REPLY in support MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Wen−Wan Chang et al. filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
246 REPLY In Support Of MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
247 MINUTES: (IN CHAMBERS) On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion to Certify Two Subclasses 231 , and Defendants Motion to Dismiss in Part, Remand in Part, and Stay in Part 233 , noticed for hearing on March 30, 2009, is hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken under submission without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
248 STATUS REPORT REGARDING NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED CATEGORY TWO SUBCLASS MEMBERS re MOTION to Dismiss Case In Part MOTION to Remand Case to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services In Part MOTION to Stay Case pending scheduling and attempted completion of Category 2 naturalization interviews 233 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
249 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Part, Remand in Part, and Stay in Part, (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Two Subclasses 233 by Judge George H. King: Defendant moves to dismiss claims Seven and Eight of Plaintiff Chih Ling Chou under the doctrine of res judicata or on the grounds of

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 275 of 288

04/13/2009 05/04/2009
06/15/2009 06/15/2009

mootness. Plaintiff does not object to this dismissal. Accordingly, Plaintiff Chih Ling Chou's Category 2 claims, claims Seven and Eight, are hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, Defendant's request for a sixty−day stay for all Category 2 claims is hereby GRANTED. The Parties are hereby ORDERED to provide a joint status report regarding the naturalization applications of the Category 2 Plaintiffs within FOURTEEN DAYS after the completion of the sixty−day stay. We caution Defendant not to request a further stay unless it can show good cause for why the stay should be extended. The sixty−day stay commences as of the date of this order. Accordingly, Defendant's request to dismiss the 15 named Category 3 Plaintiffs not residing in the Central District of California is hereby GRANTED and those 15 named Category 3 Plaintiffs' claims are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to our consideration of their claims as potential members of any subclass that might be certified. Accordingly, we hereby REMAND all Category 3 claims currently before us to USCIS, with instructions to either grant or deny all Category 3 Plaintiff naturalization applications within SIXTY DAYS. This order does not take effect until the Parties submit the joint brief, as discussed infra, and a ruling is made pursuant to that joint brief. Plaintiffs request that we certify a Category 2 subclass. Because we have already stayed all Category 2 claims, we hereby DENY Plaintiffs' Motion to certify a Category 2 subclass without prejudice pending further proceedings, if any, after expiration of the sixty−day stay. If Plaintiffs' request to certify a Category 2 subclass is not made moot by Defendant's action, Plaintiffs may re−file their motion to certify a Category 2 subclass at that time. Given our order remanding all remaining Category 3 named plaintiffs' cases back to USCIS with instructions to determine their naturalization application within sixty days, it is unclear whether Plaintiffs still wish to certify a Category 3 subclass comprising the remaining 15 Category 3 potential subclass members who do not reside in the Central District of California. Plaintiffs SHALL meet and confer with Defendant, file a joint status report within FOURTEEN DAYS informing the court whether Plaintiffs still seeks to certify a Category 3 subclass given the Court's orders, and if so, whether Defendant opposes such a subclass, given that we are inclined to remand any subclass under the same terms as we have stated we would do with respect to the three Category 3 Plaintiffs who reside in this district. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
251 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/13/2009)
252 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Category 3 Subclass by Judge George H. King granting in part and denying in part 231 Motion to Certify Class Action: For the foregoing reasons, we hereby GRANT Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Category 3 Subclass as defined above. However, Plaintiffs' request for an "open" Category 3 subclass is DENIED. Because we have already granted remand with instructions to determine Category 3 Subclass naturalization applications within 60 days of this Order, relief has already been afforded to the Category 3 Subclass. The Category 3 Subclass claim has now been disposed of, and because the named Plaintiffs have been granted all the relief afforded to them as a Category 3 subclass member, they no longer have standing to represent, or an interest in representing, any future subclass members. See Newberg § 3:7 (explaining reasons for denying an "open" class). Pursuant to § 1447(b), any future potential subclass members should bring their Category 3 claim in the district of their residence. Pursuant to this Order, and our March 31, 2009 Order, we hereby REMAND all Category 3 claims for all Category 3 subclass members currently before us to USCIS, with instructions to either grant or deny all Category 3 subclass members' naturalization applications within SIXTY DAYS hereof. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
253 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY TWO PLAINTIFFS AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY DAYS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2009)
254 Joint STIPULATION to AMEND CATEGORY 3 SUBCLASS DESIGNATION OF PLAINTIFFS CHAN−CHIA CHANG, CHAN−HAW CHANG, AND CHUL HWOAN YOUN Amended Complaint,,, 223 , Order on Motion to Certify Class Action,,,,, 252 , MOTION to Certify Class PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY TWO SUBCLASSES 231 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 276 of 288

06/16/2009 06/16/2009 06/22/2009 06/23/2009 07/06/2009 07/23/2009 09/03/2009 10/01/2009
10/01/2009 10/02/2009 10/06/2009

255 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Status Report and Request to Continue Stay 253 . Proposed order was not submitted as a separate attachment to the Request to Continue Stay. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (bm) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
256 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER of Deficiencies in Electronically field documents: The document is accepted as filed RE: Status Report 253 (ir) (Entered: 06/17/2009)
257 ORDER by Judge George H. King, re Defendant's Stipulation to Amend the Category 3 subclass designation of Plaintiffs Chan−Chia Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, and Chul Hwoan Youn 254 such that Plaintiffs Chan−Haw Chang, and Chan−Haw Chang are now designated as Category 2 Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Chul Hwoan Youn is removed from the Category 3 subclass. Stipulation is GRANTED. (ir) (Entered: 06/22/2009)
258 MINUTES IN CHAMBERS Order Continuing Stay before Judge George H. King: Pursuant to the Joint Status Report filed by the Parties on June 15, 2009 253 , this case, as it relates to Category 2 Plaintiffs, is hereby STAYED for an additional THIRTY DAYS to ensure completion of the Category 2 interviews. The Parties SHALL submit a joint status report as to the status of the Category 2 interviews by 7/23/2009. (jp) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
259 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY THREE PLAINTIFFS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 07/06/2009)
260 STATUS REPORT SECOND JOINTLY FILED REGARDING THE NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORY TWO PLAINTIFFS filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 07/23/2009)
261 STATUS REPORT JOINTLY FILED FOLLOWING COURT ORDERED STAY filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
262 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I−part1, # 11 Exhibit I−part2, # 12 Exhibit I−part3, # 13 Exhibit I−part4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Exhibit Z, # 31 Exhibit AA, # 32 Exhibit BB, # 33 Exhibit CC, # 34 Exhibit DD, # 35 Exhibit EE, # 36 Exhibit FF, # 37 Exhibit GG)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
263 MEMORANDUM in Support MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
264 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
265 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS filed by PLAINTIFFS Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/06/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 277 of 288

10/06/2009 10/07/2009 10/07/2009
10/08/2009 10/19/2009
10/19/2009
10/22/2009 10/26/2009 10/26/2009 10/30/2009

266 MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
267 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents. The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is incorrect RE: MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 . In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. (mz) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
268 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS filed by PLAINTIFFS Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/2/2009 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
269 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT 264 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
270 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 268 , MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 265 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SWORN OF ADAM LAURENCE GOLDMAN)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
271 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) 262 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/19/2009)
272 MINUTES OF ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON CALENDAR FROM NOVEMBER 2, 2009 TO NOVEMBER 16, 2009 held before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: The parties are advised that plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of documents relating to USCIS' adjudication of naturalization applications is being continued from November 2, 2009, to November 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (es) (Entered: 10/22/2009)
273 REPLY in support of MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) 262 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
274 REPLY IN SUPPORT MOTION to Dismiss CAUSES OF ACTION SEVEN, EIGHT, AND NINE AS MOOT 264 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 10/26/2009)
275 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: taking under submission 262 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; taking under submission 264 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: On the court's own motion, Plaintiff'S Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 262 , and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 264 , noticed for hearing on November 2, 2009, are TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (bm) (Entered: 10/30/2009)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 278 of 288

11/05/2009 11/05/2009
03/03/2010
03/03/2010 04/05/2010 04/07/2010 04/09/2010

276 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Withdraw Amended MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO USCIS' ADJUDICATION OF NATURALIZATION APPLICATIONS 268 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 11/16/2009 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
277 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King: denying 262 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; dismissing 264 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: Accordingly, we hereby DENY as futile and premature the Motion for Leave to Amend. As we grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, see infra, we need not address the deletion of the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims in the proposed 4AC. Finally, the above− captioned action is hereby STAYED for sixty (60) days hereof. In so staying the action, we express no view as to what constitutes a reasonable period of time for rendering a final determination following a § 1447(a) hearing. We hereby GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the Seventh and Eighth Claims. These claims are hereby DISMISSED as moot. We separately DISMISS without prejudice Sung La Kim's claim for abandoning and otherwise failing to prosecute her naturalization application. Accordingly, we also hereby GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to the Ninth Claim. The Ninth claim is hereby DISMISSED as moot. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
278 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 4/19/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I PART 1, # 11 Exhibit I PART 2, # 12 Exhibit I PART 3, # 13 Exhibit I PART 4, # 14 Exhibit J, # 15 Exhibit K, # 16 Exhibit L, # 17 Exhibit M, # 18 Exhibit N, # 19 Exhibit O, # 20 Exhibit P, # 21 Exhibit Q, # 22 Exhibit R, # 23 Exhibit S, # 24 Exhibit T, # 25 Exhibit U, # 26 Exhibit V, # 27 Exhibit W, # 28 Exhibit X, # 29 Exhibit Y, # 30 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint Regarding 8 U.S.C. 1421(c))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
279 MEMORANDUM in Support of Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/03/2010)
280 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
281 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to Accept As Timely A Late−Filed Brief and, EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from April 19, 2010 to April 26, 2010 Re: MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion, 280 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sworn of Adam Laurence Goldman, # 2 Proposed Order)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/07/2010)
282 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King granting 281 Ex Parte Application for Leave; granting 281 Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Leave to Accept as Timely a Late−Filed Brief, or, Alternatively, to Adjourn the Hearing Date for One Week: Defendant the United States of America ("Government") filed its Opposition (Dkt. No. 280) to Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Regarding 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c) (Dkt. No. 278) on April 5, 2010. Counsel has represented to us that he inadvertently overlooked the change to Local Rule 7−9, which now requires that any opposition to a motion be filed no later than twenty−one (21) days prior to the hearing on the motion. (Goldman Decl. 3−5). The current hearing date is Monday April 19, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., so the Opposition

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 279 of 288

04/19/2010 04/21/2010 04/26/2010 04/29/2010 05/03/2010 05/04/2010
05/11/2010

was untimely under the new version of Local Rule 7−9, which went into effect on January 1, 2010. Nevertheless, given the Government's inadvertence, we hereby DEEM the Opposition timely as filed. Any Reply SHALL be filed no later than April 19, 2010. The hearing set for Monday April 19, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., is CONTINUED to Monday May 3, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. (bm) (Entered: 04/09/2010)
283 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c)Second MOTION to AMEND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT REGARDING 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) 278 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Status Report, # 2 Exhibit Amended Exhibit W)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
284 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ira J Kurzban counsel for Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Changing Address to 634 S. Spring St. #714 Los Angeles, CA 90014. Adding Stacy Eva Tolchin as attorney as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G−06 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Ira J. Kurzban (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
285 NOTICE filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Amend [DE 278] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Authority Agarwal v. Napolitano)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/26/2010)
286 RESPONSE filed by Defendant United States of Americato Notice (Other) 285 of supplemental authority in support of second motion to amend complaint for fourth occasion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 04/29/2010)
287 MINUTES: MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 278 ; Matter called. Parties are present. The Court hears argument of counsel regarding plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend. Motion for leave to amend is granted. The Court will issue further order IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
288 MINUTES: (In Chambers) Order regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to Amend Complaint for a Fourth Occasion 278 . The Motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL file a Fourth Amended Complaint within seven (7) days hereof. The Government SHALL file any motion to dismiss within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the 4AC. The motion to dismiss SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages in length. Within fourteen (14) days of the filing of the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs SHALL file any Opposition, which SHALL NOT exceed twenty (20) pages in length. Within seven (7) days of the filing of the Opposition, Defendant SHALL file any Reply, which SHALL NOT exceed ten (10) pages in length. Following counsel's submission of the 4AC, Plaintiffs may file any motion for class certification. We express no judgment as to what effect, if any, the filing and pendency of such a motion would have on any Section 1421(c) claims brought by out−of−district Category 6 Plaintiffs. As stated during the hearing on the Motion, we do not purport to rule on any such motions for classcertification at this time (See document for further details) IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
289 FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendants United States of America amending Third Amended Complaint, 223 ,filed by plaintiffs Albrecht Buhler, Tsung−Wei Chang, Wei−Ting Chang, Wen−Wan Chang, Hui−Yu Chuang, Yu−Te Chuang, Chi−Fang Hsu, Yu−Fang Hsu, Bi Chen Huang, Ta−Lun Huang, Ta−You Huang, Kyu Hur, Kyung Hwa Hur, Myung Ok Hur, Yool Hur, Choong Nam Kim, Sung Duck Kong, Chin−Hsin Kuo, Ko−Ting Lin, Szu−Yin Lin, Chun−Chen Su, Po−Lin Su, Po−Wei Su, Yuk Lan Wang Wong. (bm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/13/2010: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I Pt. 1, # 10 Exhibit I Pt. 2, # 11 Exhibit I Pt. 3, # 12 Exhibit I Pt. 4, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit R, # 22 Exhibit S, # 23 Exhibit T, # 24 Exhibit U, # 25 Exhibit V, # 26 Exhibit W, # 27 Exhibit X, # 28 Exhibit Y) (bm). (Entered: 05/12/2010)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 280 of 288

05/25/2010
05/27/2010 06/08/2010 06/15/2010 06/21/2010 06/28/2010 07/07/2010 07/21/2010
08/11/2010 08/16/2010 08/24/2010

290 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed by Defendant United States of America. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Adam Laurence Goldman, # 2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 3 Exhibit One, # 4 Exhibit Two, # 5 Exhibit Three, # 6 Exhibit Four, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 05/25/2010)
291 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 7/12/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum and Points of Authority In Support of Motion to Certify Subclass)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
292 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 290 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
293 REPLY In Support MOTION to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted 290 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three, # 4 Exhibit Four, # 5 Exhibit Five)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
294 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass 291 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
295 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass MOTION to Certify 1421(c) Subclass 291 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 06/28/2010)
296 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR held before Judge George H. King: On the Court's own motion, Defendant's motion to dismiss cause of action Seven (Doc # 290) and Plaintiff's motion for Subclass Certification (Doc. # 291) currently scheduled for Monday, July 12, 2010 at 9:30 a.m are hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR. No appearance is necessary. (bm) (Entered: 07/08/2010)
297 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge George H. King granting 290 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Cause of Action Seven for Failure to State a Claim; denying 291 Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification for 8 U.S.C. 1421(c) Subclass: Accordingly, we hereby GRANT the Motion to Dismiss and DENY the Motion for Class Certification as moot. The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for Wednesday August 18, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. The Parties SHALL be prepared to discuss possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
298 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/13/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum Memorandum and Points of Authority in Support of Motions, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Text of S.3702)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
299 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Vacating Status Conference by Judge George H. King: The status conference, currently scheduled for August 18, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., is hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and VACATED pending our decision on Plaintiffs' motion to stay, which has been noticed for hearing on September 13, 2010. (bm) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
300 NOTICE OF MOTION re MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/20/2010 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Kurzban, Ira) **STRICKEN PURSUANT TO RESPONSE BY THE COURT filed 8/26/10** Modified on 8/26/2010 (ir). (Entered: 08/24/2010)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 281 of 288

08/25/2010
08/25/2010 08/26/2010 08/27/2010
08/30/2010 09/07/2010 09/07/2010 09/15/2010 09/17/2010

301 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Amended Notice of Motion 300 . The following error(s) was found: Hearing information is missing, incorrect, or not timely. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Hearing date is set for a different hearing date than original motion (doc. 298, efiled on 8/11/10). Effective 1/1/10, Local Rule 6−1 requires that notice of motion/application for hearing be filed with the Clerk not later than 28 days before the date set for hearing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
302 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims as Final from September 13, 2010 to September 20, 2010 Re: Notice of Motion,, 300 filed by Plaintiffs Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order to Continue Hearing)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/25/2010)
303 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER of Deficiencies in Electronically filed documents: Amended Notice of Motion 300 is stricken from the record. (ir) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
304 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DATE OF HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING LEGISLATION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY DISMISSAL OF NATURALIZATION CLAIMS UNDER F.R.C.P. 54(b) TO SEPT. 20, 2010 by Judge George H. King, re Stipulation 302 : Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Joint Stipulation to move the date of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims as Final to September 20, 2010 is granted. The hearing on the motions will be re−set to September 20, 2010 at 9:30AM, unless otherwise submitted without oral argument. (bm) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
305 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One, # 2 Exhibit Two, # 3 Exhibit Three, # 4 Exhibit Four, # 5 Proof of Service)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
306 REPLY in support of MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) MOTION to Stay Case pending Congress' Vote on Legislation (S.3702) and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to F.R.C.P 54(b) 298 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Letter from Stephen Yale−Loehr to Ira Kurzban (Sept. 7, 2010), # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B: Letter from Linda Maynor and Russell Cartwright to Ira Kurzban (Sept. 7, 2010))(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
307 NOTICE of Decision: Supplemental Authority −− Jose Gonzalez v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 2:09−cv−03426−WJM−MF (D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2010) filed by Defendant United States of America. In Support of Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion For A Stay And Entry Of A Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Goldman, Adam) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
308 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge George H. King: On the court's own motion, Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Legislation and Motion to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims 298 noticed for hearing on September 20, 2010, is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and will be taken UNDER SUBMISSION without oral argument on that date. F.R.Civ.P. 78;Local Rule 7−15 (formerly 7.11). No appearance by counsel shall be necessary. The hearing date is vacated. Further briefing, if any, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules as if the noticed hearing date had not been vacated. (lw) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
309 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Appeal of Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion to Certify,,,, 297 (Appeal fee of $455

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 282 of 288

09/17/2010 09/21/2010 09/28/2010
10/13/2010 10/17/2010
10/18/2010 10/18/2010 12/01/2010
12/01/2010
12/22/2010

receipt number 0973−7533769 paid.) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Order Being Appealed, # 2 Supplement Service List)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
310 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 . (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
311 NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 10−56477, 9th CCA regarding Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 as to Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (lr) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
338 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang, CCA # 10−56477. The district court's order challenged in this appeal did not dispose of the action as to all claims and all parties. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42−1. [See Document for further information] Order received in this district on 6/6/11. (car) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
312 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION AND ORDERING FORM For Dates: 5/3/2010; Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Ricker; Court of Appeals Case Number: 10−56477; Re: 309 (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
313 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on May 3, 2010; 9:35 a.m. Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey, mary.usdc@yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 11/7/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/17/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/15/2011. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 10/17/2010)
314 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings May 3, 2010; 9:35 a.m. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
315 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang ; Court of Appeals Case Number: 10−56477. (dmap) (Entered: 10/18/2010)
316 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay and to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs' request for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs' request to certify the Courts July 21, 2010 Order, (Dkt. No. 297), dismissing Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED.The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for January 31, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report by January 24, 2010 discussing possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. denying 298 Motion to Stay Case. (lw) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
317 AMENDED MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay and to Certify Dismissal of Naturalization Claims Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) by Judge George H. King: Plaintiffs request for a stay is DENIED. Plaintiffs request to certify the Courts July 21, 2010 Order, (Dkt. No. 297), dismissing Plaintiffs seventh cause of action pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED. The Parties SHALL appear at a further status conference, which we hereby schedule for JANUARY 31, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report by JANUARY 24, 2011 discussing possible trial dates on the pending equitable estoppel claim (see 4AC 134−53), and any other remaining issues for resolution. re: Minutes in chambers order 316 . (lw) (Entered: 12/02/2010)
318 REQUEST TO Substitute attorney Kimberly Wiggans in place of attorney Adam Goldman filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiggans, Kimberly) *** DOCUMENT MODIFIED PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED 12−28−10, DOC #320 *** Modified on 12/28/2010 (lw). (Entered: 12/22/2010)

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 283 of 288

12/28/2010 12/28/2010 01/05/2011 01/19/2011 01/24/2011 01/31/2011
03/15/2011 03/22/2011 03/23/2011
03/23/2011

319 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Request to Substitute Attorney 318 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. The correct event is: Requests−Substitute Attorney (G−01). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
320 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court by Beatrice Herrera, Clerk to Judge King: The document is accepted as filed. THE RECORD SHALL REFLECT THE CORRECT DOCUMENT ATTACHED SHOULD BE REQUEST AND NOT MOTION. RE: Request to Substitute attorney Kimberly Wiggans in place of attorney Adam Goldman 318 (lw) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
321 ORDER ON REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by Judge George H. King granting 318 Request to Substitute Attorney. The Court hereby orders that the request of: Janet Napolitano, Secretary, DHS, Defendant, to substitute Kimberly Wiggans as attorney of record in place and stead of Adam Goldman. (bm) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
322 ORDER from 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 309 filed by Wen−Wan Chang, CCA # 10−56477. Order received in this district on 1/19/11. Appellee's motion to strike appellants' November 5, 2010 filing is denied. The district court's order challenged in this appeal did not dispose of the action as to all claims and all parties and, therefore, is not a final order reviewable on appeal. Further, appellants failed to obtain a 54(b) certification from the district court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (cbr) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
323 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT FOR TRIAL PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF DEC. 1, 2010 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
325 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Scheduling Conference held before Judge George H. King: The Court conducted a scheduling conference with counsel. All Parties agree that the only remaining claim is equitable estoppel. Because there are outstanding discovery issues and Defendant's counsel is new to the case, the Parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer and, if necessary, file any motions to compel by April 1, 2011. By this date, the Parties SHALL also file a joint status report advising the Court whether any motions to compel have been filed. If any such motions have been filed, we will await their resolution by the Magistrate Judge, at which time the Parties SHALL file a further joint status report advising the Court of the Magistrate Judge's ruling. If no motions to compel are filed, we will deem discovery to be complete and will issue such other orders as appropriate. Court Reporter: N/A. (bm) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
328 MANDATE of 9th CCA filed re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 309 CCA # 10−56477. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mandate received in this district on 3/15/2011. (dmap) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
329 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Scheduling Conference, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,, 325 or, EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order Clarifying the January 31, 2011 order filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Draft Stipulation)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
330 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Ex Parte Application 329 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): Proposed order was not submitted as a separate, additional attachment to the Ex Parte Application. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
331 OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A: Declaration of Ira J. Kurzban, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 284 of 288

03/29/2011
04/01/2011
04/01/2011 04/05/2011 05/11/2011 05/16/2011 06/10/2011 06/22/2011 07/22/2011 07/26/2011

B: March 4, 2011 e−mail from Kimberly Wiggans to Ira Kurzban)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
332 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: Defendants Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration, or, in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court's January 31, 2011 Order by Judge George H. King: This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Ex Parte Application. Given the lengthy and complicated procedural history of this case, it is understandable if the discovery completion date hasbeen less than clear. At this time, we choose to allow Plaintiffs to present their motion to compel to the Magistrate Judge. We deem all discovery to be complete with the exception of any discovery that the Magistrate Judge may order pursuant to the motion to compel. Therefore, Defendant's Application is DENIED.RE: 329 Ex Parte Application for Order (lw) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
333 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 6/20/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Joint Stipulation, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A−D, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits E−J, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits K−M, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit N, # 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit O, # 8 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibits 1−18, # 9 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 19)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
334 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 31, 2011 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
335 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court by Beatrice Herrera, Clerk to Judge King: The document is accepted as filed. COURT HAS ISSUED ORDER REGARDING THE EX PARTE APPLICATION. RE: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Reconsideration re Scheduling Conference 329 (lw) (Entered: 04/05/2011)
336 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery from June 20, 2011 to July 25, 2011 Re: MOTION to Compel Discovery 333 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 05/11/2011)
337 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL TO JULY 25, 2011, 336 by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Before the Court is the parties Joint Stipulation to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel to July 25, 2011. Good cause being shown, said stipulation is GRANTED. (mz) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
339 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Geoffrey Forney on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
340 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying 333 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal in a procedurally proper fashion and on the basis of a more adequate record, including full compliance with Local Rule 37. IT IS SO ORDERED. (mz) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
341 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
342 MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order re: Parties Joint Status Report 34 : We have received the Parties July 22, 2011 joint status report, informing the Court that Judge Wistrich denied without prejudice Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, that Plaintiffs have proposed to comply with Local Rule 37−1 by way of a conference during the week of August 1, 2011, and that if all discovery matters are not resolved within the next 15 days, Plaintiffs will refile their motion... as soon as possible thereafter. (Dkt. No. 341, at 3). To ensure that this process proceeds expeditiously, we ORDER the Parties to file any Motion to Compel by no later than August 30, 2011. By the same date, the Parties SHALL provide the Court with a joint status report informing the Court whether any Motion to Compel has been filed. Furthermore, within forty−eight (48) hours of any ruling by Judge Wistrich on such Motion, the Parties SHALL file a joint status report

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 285 of 288

08/30/2011
08/30/2011 09/28/2011 10/04/2011
11/03/2011 11/28/2011 11/28/2011 12/07/2011 12/07/2011 12/08/2011 12/27/2011 02/22/2012 02/23/2012

with the Court so indicating. At that time, we will issue such other orders as may be appropriate IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
343 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 12/12/2011 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Supplement Joint Stipulation Regarding Discovery Requests in Dispute, # 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits A to C, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit D part 1 of 2, # 5 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit D part 2 of 2, # 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibits E to H, # 7 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibits 1 to 17, # 8 Exhibit Defendant's Exhibit 18)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
344 STATUS REPORT JOINT STATUS REPORT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER OF JULY 26, 2011 filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
345 STATUS REPORT Related to Proposed Rulemaking filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Federal Register Notice)(Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
346 MINUTE: (In Chambers) Order Directing Filing of Joint Status Report: We have received the Parties September 28, 2011 joint status report, informing the Court that the Department of Homeland Security published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a proposed regulation that may apply to and affect the Parties in this case 345 . Accordingly, the Parties are directed to meet and confer and, within thirty (30) days hereof, file a joint status report concerning the potential effect of such regulation, should it become a final rule, on this action IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge George H. King. (ir) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
347 STATUS REPORT (Joint) Pursuant to Court Order of October 4, 2011 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Wiggans, Kimberly) (Entered: 11/03/2011)
348 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 (Defendant's Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Motion to Compel Discovery) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
349 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 (Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum) filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 11/28/2011)
350 APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from 12/12/11 to 1/30/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 1/30/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
351 Amended APPLICATION to Continue Hearing from 12/12/11 to 02/27/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 2/27/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
352 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: granting 351 Application to Continue. Good cause exists to grant this request. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery is reset for February 27, 2012. (mz) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
353 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kimberly Helvey counsel for Defendant United States of America. Changing attorney name to Kimberly Helvey. Changing e−mail to Kimberly.E.Helvey@usdoj.gov. Filed by Defendant United States of America (Helvey, Kimberly) (Entered: 12/27/2011)
354 Joint APPLICATION to Continue hearing from 2/27/12 to 6/25/12 filed by Defendant United States of America. Application set for hearing on 6/25/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
355 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: re: MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 . The hearing originally scheduled has been rescheduled: re MOTION to Compel Discovery 343 .( Discovery Hearing set for 6/25/2012 10:00 AM before Magistrate

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 286 of 288

03/27/2012 04/09/2012 05/09/2012 05/23/2012
06/01/2012
06/15/2012 07/30/2012 08/13/2012 08/14/2012 08/14/2012
08/15/2012

Judge Andrew J. Wistrich.) (yb) Modified on 2/23/2012 (yb). (Entered: 02/23/2012)
356 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Wistrich: denying without prejudice to its renewal after the parties' settlement negotiations have run their course. 343 Motion to Compel. The parties have reported to the court that settlement negotiations are ongoing. Counsel are directed to file a joint report on the status of their settlement negotiations every 30 days, commencing April 9, 2012. (yb) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
357 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2012)
358 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
359 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE by Judge George H. King: COUNSEL ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for a telephonic status conference on JUNE 1, 2012 AT 10:30 A.M. Counsel responsible for the conduct and trial of the above case shall appear by telephone. Plaintiff is directed to initiate the conference call by making sure all parties are on the line prior to contacting the Court at the following number: (213) 894−5766. (bm) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
360 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE held before Judge George H. King: Court conducts telephonic status conference with counsel regarding status of settlement discussions. Counsel represent that they are optimistic that there will be a settlement, pending Homeland Security approval of the latest iteration of the agreement. Court directs counsel to file a joint status report once Homeland Security has acted, but in no event later than June 15, 2012. If the settlement is approved by Homeland Security, counsel shall set forth the steps that would have to be taken before final settlement approval and a proposed timetable therefor. If Homeland Security has not yet acted by June 15, 2012, defendant's counsel shall set forth an estimate of the time needed for Homeland Security to act. The court will issue such other orders as may be appropriate after reviewing the status report. Court Reporter: N/A. (bm) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
361 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
362 STATUS REPORT (Joint) filed by Defendant United States of America. (Helvey, Kimberly) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
363 JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Settlement Agreement))(Forney, Geoffrey) ***CORRECTED TO READ THE SAME AS DOCUMENT FILED*** Modified on 8/17/2012 (lw). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
364 NOTICE OF MOTION AND Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of : Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness Hearing, and a Stay of Proceedings filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 9/17/2012 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
365 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Joint Status Report 363 . The following error(s) was found: Incorrect event selected. Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. The correct event is: Miscellaneous Filings (Non−Motion)−Status Report. Other error(s) with document(s): Docket entry text does not match caption of the attached document. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
366 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Attachment 1: Proposed Order 364 . The following error(s) was found: Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Other error(s) with document(s): proposed order does not have blank lines for the court to insert date and time for fairness hearing and

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 287 of 288

08/17/2012 08/17/2012 08/21/2012 08/24/2012
09/21/2012 09/24/2012
09/27/2012
09/28/2012 10/05/2012 10/11/2012
01/10/2013

date order signed. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (bm) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
367 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court: The document is accepted as filed. RE: Joint Status Report 363 (lw) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
368 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TOFILER OF DEFICIENCIES INELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS − ORDER by Clerk of Court: The document is accepted as filed. RE: Attachment #1; Proposed Order to Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval of : Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness Hearing, and a Stay of Proceedings 364 (lw) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
369 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule Motion Hearing Date and Request Permission for Defendants Counsel to Appear Telephonically filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
370 ORDER by Judge George H. King: Upon review of the parties' Stipulation 369 , the Court hereby reschedules consideration of their pending Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, a Fairness hearing and a Stay of proceedings 364 for 9/24/2012 at 09:30 AM. Should a hearing be necessary, Defendant's counsel may appear through local counsel from the U.S. Attorney's office or defendant may waive its appearance. No telephonic hearings. (ir) (Entered: 08/24/2012)
371 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Glenn M Girdharry on behalf of Defendant United States of America (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
372 MINUTES OF MOTION BY PLAINTIFF FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; 364 Hearing held before Judge George H. King: Matter called. Counsel for the parties are present. Court hears from counsel. Having heard from counsel, Court directs the parties to make the necessary changes to the settlement agreement and submit the notice to the Court for approval by no later than September 28, 2012. Court to issue further order. Court Reporter: Mary riordan Rickey. (bm) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
373 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER re: Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement by Judge George H. King granting 364 Motion for Settlement: After considering all the relevant factors and the special nature of this case, we conclude that the proposed settlement is within the range of approvable settlements. Accordingly, the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED. The final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for Monday, January 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. In light of the foregoing, we conditionally CERTIFY the proposed class for purposes of settlement. Further, the Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval is GRANTED. (see document for further details) (bm) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
374 STATUS REPORT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
375 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT filed by Defendant United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
376 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS re: Revised Settlement Agreement by Judge George H. King: On October 5, 2012, the Parties submitted a revised Settlement Agreement pursuant to our September 24, 2012 hearing. Having reviewed the revised Settlement Agreement, we conclude that the Parties have adequately addressed our concerns. We therefore direct the Parties to notify class members of the proposed settlement as set forth in the revised Settlement Agreement. As stated in our September 27, 2012 Order, [Dkt. No. 373], the final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. (bm) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
377 AFFIDAVIT in contemplation of the Jan. 14, 2013 Fairness Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Chan−Chia Chang, Chan−Haw Chang, Chan−Wei Chang, Chan−Zue Chang, Chia−How Chang, Chiao−Ying Chang, Ching−Farn Chang, Hsu−Yi Chang, Hsueh−Mei Chang (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7

Case: 2:99-cv-10518 As of: 10/06/2015 04:11 PM PDT 288 of 288

01/11/2013
01/11/2013 01/14/2013 01/18/2013 01/18/2013 02/13/2013
02/15/2013 03/05/2013 03/07/2013

Exhibit Exhibit F)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
378 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on September 24, 2012; a.m. session. Court Reporter Mary R. Rickey, Mary.USDC@Yahoo.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 2/1/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/11/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/11/2013. (Rickey, Mary R.) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
379 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings September 24, 2012; a.m. session re Transcript 378 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(Rickey, Mary R.) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 01/11/2013)
380 MINUTES OF Hearing re Final Approval of Class Settlement held before Judge George H. King: Counsel shall submit further briefing as prescribed on the record within seven (7) days hereof. Court Reporter: Mary Riordan Rickey. (rne) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
381 AFFIDAVIT by affiant: Ira J. Kurzban filed by Plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
382 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order Granting Final Approval of Settlement re Status Conference 380 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
383 ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT by Judge George H. King: The Court, after review of the entire record, and after considering all papers filed and proceedings held in connection with the Agreement, including the fairness hearing held on January 14, 2013, has determined that the settlement should be APPROVED. 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this litigation, and all actions within this litigation and over the parties to the Agreement, including all members of the class on the one hand, and defendant the United States of America on the other. 2. The Court hereby finally APPROVES and CONFIRMS the settlement set forth in the Agreement and finds that said settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The notice given to the class members set forth in the Agreement, see Doc. 375−2, provided due and adequate notice of these proceedings and of the matters set forth therein, including the proposed settlement set forth in the Agreement, toall persons entitled to such notice. 4. Pursuant to the Agreement, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to review any pattern or practice violation by Defendant of Plaintiffs' rights under the Agreement. 5. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiffs shall within five (5) days of this Order, lodge with the Court their Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions, Doc. 375−1. (ir) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
384 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions filed by plaintiff Wen−Wan Chang. Motion set for hearing on 3/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George H. King. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kurzban, Ira) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
385 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions 384 filed by Defendant United States of America. (Forney, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
386 ORDER by Judge George H. King: granting 384 Unopposed Motion to Order Adjudication of Form I−829 Petitions (shb) (Entered: 03/07/2013)

 
 327 F.3d 911 (2003)
Wen-Wan CHANG; Tsung-Ming Chang; Chiao-Ying Chang; Yi Yuan Chiang; Hsien-Ming Hsieh; Shu-Chuan Hsieh; Pei-Chen Hsieh; Sung Duck Kong; Hye Ra Kong; Hyun Jung Kong; Min Suk Kong; Yei-Chien Lai; Yu Kuei Lai; Yen Chih Lai; Chen Ju Lai; Yoon Sik Lee; Jong Hee Lee; Eung Jun Lee; Sang Eun Lee; Eung Sang Lee; Cheng-Hsiung She; Hui Wen She; Tzu Ming She; Alabama Almark, LP; Alabama Bailey LP; Alabama Coosa LP;
Alabama Dallas LP; Alabama Denim LP; Alabama Millry LP; Alabama Pro Sports LP; Alabama Rive Run LP; C & W Hotel LP; Delaware Milford LP; Georgia Almark LP;
Louisiana Lasevilla LP; Mississippi Bass LP; Mississippi Magee LP; Mississippi MCT LP; Mississippi Neely LP, Maryland Limited Partnerships; Mississippi Tees LP, a Mississippi
Limited Partnership; National Steak Restaurants LP; North Carolina K-Barb LP; North Carolina Russell-Harvelle Hosiery LP; Pennsylvania Loungewear LP; Recap Fund I LP; Recap Fund V LP; RPC Fund I LP; South Carolina Manufacturing LP; Tennessee Lafayette
LP; WTC Fund I LP; United States Export Fund I LP, Maryland Limited Partnerships, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Wen-Wan Chang; Tsung-Ming Chang; Chiao-Ying Chang; Yi Yuan Chiang; Hsien-Ming Hsieh; Shu-Chuan Hsieh; Pei-Chen Hsieh; Sung Duck Kong; Hye Ra Kong; Hyun Jung Kong; Min Suk Kong; Yei-Chien Lai; Yu Kuei Lai; Yen Chih Lai; Chen Ju Lai; Yoon Sik Lee; Jong Hee Lee; Eung Jun Lee; Sang Eun Lee; Eung Sang Lee; Cheng-Hsiung She; Hui Wen She; Tzu Ming She; Alabama Almark, LP; Alabama Bailey LP; Alabama Coosa LP; Alabama Dallas LP; Alabama Denim LP; Alabama Millry LP; Alabama Pro Sports LP;
Alabama Rive Run LP; C & W Hotel LP; Delaware Milford LP; Georgia Almark LP; Louisiana Lasevilla LP; Mississippi Bass LP; Mississippi Magee LP; Mississippi MCT LP; Mississippi Neely LP, Maryland Limited Partnerships; Mississippi Tees LP, a Mississippi
Limited Partnership; National Steak Restaurants LP; North Carolina K-Barb LP; North Carolina Russell-Harvelle Hosiery LP; Pennsylvania Loungewear LP; Recap Fund I LP; Recap Fund V L; RPC Fund I LP; South Carolina Manufacturing LP; Tennessee Lafayette
LP; WTC Fund I LP; United States Export Fund I LP, Maryland Limited Partnerships, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
United States of America, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 01-56266, 01-56379.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2003. Filed April 29, 2003.
91345 *913 *914 *915 Ira J. Kurzban and Matthew Carlson, Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzili, Miami, FL and Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout & Brigagliano, San Francisco, CA, for the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee.
John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, and Heather Phillips, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the defendant-appellee-cross-appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and BURY, District Judge.[*]

BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellants are seven "Immigrant Investors" who have participated in the "EB-5" program, which grants lawful permanent resident ("LPR") status in the United States to those who make qualifying investments under 916 the Immigrant Investor Law ("IIL"), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b)(5), 1186b; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6, 216.6.[1] Appellants *916 complain that in 1998, after their investment proposals and business plans had been approved and they and their dependents had moved to the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") changed the rules of the EB-5 program. Appellants contend that the INS applied these new rules to reject their applications at a stage in the process that called only for confirmation that they had fulfilled their part of the originally approved bargain. The government counters, inter alia, that new amendments to EB-5 in November, 2002 render the instant case moot and establish a new exhaustion requirement for some plaintiffs.
We hold that the recent amendments to EB-5 neither render this case moot nor establish an additional administrative appeal that plaintiffs must exhaust before obtaining judicial review. We hold further that the district court erred in finding that the claims of six Appellants were not ripe for adjudication and, therefore, that the district court should analyze whether a plaintiffs' class should be certified. Finally, we hold that the district court correctly rejected the motion to dismiss the retroactivity claim on the pleadings. It erred, however, in remanding to the INS. Because the analysis involves solely questions of law, we conduct the retroactivity analysis ourselves and conclude that the 1998 changes in the EB-5 rules are impermissibly retroactive as applied to the evaluation of Appellants' petitions to remove the conditions on their permanent residency.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellants have applied to become lawful permanent residents ("LPRs") under the EB-5 program, which grants such status to Immigrant Investors who create jobs for United States workers.[2] EB-5 requires prospective Immigrant Investors to file "I-526" petitions seeking approval of their submitted investment and business plans. After approval, Immigrant Investors and their dependents may enter the country as conditional LPRs. EB-5 requires the Immigrant Investors to file a second petition, an "I-829," between 21 and 24 months after the first petition. The INS is to approve the I-829 petition, and grant unconditional LPR status, if it finds that the petitioner made no material misrepresentations in the I-526 petition and complied with the EB-5 requirements. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.6, 216.6.
The INS approved Appellants' initial I-526 petitions between July 1996 and July 1997. Upon approval, Appellants and their families moved to the United States with conditional LPR status. However, Appellants' I-526 petitions contained features that the INS now believes contravene the terms of the IIL program. For example: 1) Appellants were not partners at the inception of the limited partnerships in which they invested, 2) they were guaranteed the right to redeem their full investments after they received permanent residency, 3) they were guaranteed a return on their investments, 4) their promissory notes were insufficient because they were valued at face value and did not adequately reveal the personal assets securing the notes, and 5) they were permitted to make balloon payments to their limited partnerships or to continue making payments on their promissory notes beyond the end 917 of their two-year conditional *917 residency periods.[3] At the time the INS approved Appellants' I-526 petitions, these features were not considered by the INS to be disqualifying, but the INS has since declared that by structuring their investments in these ways Appellants had transformed them into loans.
AIS, the private agency that had recruited Appellants and channeled their investments into the limited partnerships, had conferred with the INS to ensure its investment packages were acceptable. It made some changes as a result of its inquiries, and was assured that any further changes in the IIL would involve notice and comment rulemaking and apply prospectively. Ultimately, however, the INS instead established new rules for EB-5 applicants through a set of "precedent decisions" rejecting the appeals of other new applicants' I-526 petitions. The pertinent case for our purposes is Matter of Izummi, 22 I. & N. Dec. 169, Interim Decision (BIA) 3360, 1998 WL 483977 (1998), which held inter alia that Immigrant Investors' I-526 petitions could not be approved if the Immigrant Investors were not partners at the inception of a partnership or if their investment plans

featured a redemption agreement or related provisions. Had the criteria announced in these decisions been in effect at the time Appellants filed their I-526 petitions, the petitions would not have been approved.
The precedent decisions were issued subsequent to the INS's approval of Appellants' I-526 petitions. However, the INS applied the new criteria to the Appellants' I-829 petitions. Prior to the district court hearing, it denied Appellant Yi Yuan Chiang's petition, as well as those of other similarly-situated non-plaintiffs, and placed the six other Appellants' petitions on indefinite "administrative hold." The INS argues that, based on the precedent decisions, a review of Appellants' I-829 petitions will not allow it to certify that Appellants have complied with the legal requirements of EB-5.
Appellants brought suit to force consideration of their I-829 petitions based solely on the criteria that were in effect when their I-526 petitions were approved. They argue that the INS should review the I-829 petitions only for whether they made material misrepresentations in their I-526 petitions and whether they executed their proposed plans. Appellants asked the district court (1) to estop the INS from applying its current interpretation of EB-5 to their I-829 petitions because it had approved their I-526 petitions, (2) to rule that the INS did not follow required Administrative Procedure Act notice and comment procedures for changing its rules governing EB-5, and (3) to rule that applying the new interpretations of the EB-5 law and regulations promulgated in the precedent decisions to their I-829 petitions would be impermissibly retroactive. They also sought certification as a class action.
The INS challenged the justiciability of Appellants' claims and moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The district court dismissed the claims of all petitioners except Chiang as not ripe and dismissed the motion for certification of a plaintiffs' class as moot. It granted the government's 12(c) motion on Chiang's estoppel and APA claims, but denied the motion on the retroactivity claim, holding that an analysis applying the factors presented in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982), was 918 appropriate. It remanded this claim to *918 the INS for the agency to develop the record and conduct such an analysis.[4]
Appellants appeal the rulings on ripeness, mootness as to class certification, and the dismissal of their APA and estoppel claims. In its counterclaim, the government appeals the remand to the INS for a retroactivity analysis. The government also asserts that this court has no jurisdiction to consider Chiang's claim because 8 U.S.C. § 1186b mandates that appeals be pursued solely through the INS's administrative appeals process; it contends that the substantive issues raised by Chiang may reach this court only after being rejected by the INS in a removal proceeding. Appellants argue that this court has no jurisdiction to hear the government's counterclaim because the remand to the INS is not a final order.
On November 2, 2002, after this appeal was filed, Congress enacted the "21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act." Pub.L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758. "Subtitle B" of the act amended the Immigration and Naturalization Act and created a new class of "eligible aliens" who, like Appellants, had obtained approval of their I-526 petitions between January 1, 1995 and August 31, 1998, had conditional LPR status, and had filed their I-829 petitions on time. Under the statute, these eligible aliens may have their I-829 petitions approved under relaxed standards. If their I-526 petitions contained no material misrepresentations and their conditions were satisfied, they are given additional time, up to when the Attorney General makes his determination as to their eligibility, to bring their business ventures into compliance with the EB-5 program as changed by the new precedent decisions. Subtitle B also provides that aliens like Appellant Chiang, whose I-829 petitions have already been rejected, may reopen their cases by filing for reconsideration by January 1, 2003.
The government argues that Appellants' claims are moot because the November 2002 "Subtitle B" amendments grant all appropriate relief in this case. It further argues that Chiang's claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies if he did not meet the January 1 deadline for invoking the new appeal procedures of Subtitle B. Finally, the government argues that the appeals of all Appellants but Chiang were not ripe for consideration by the district court because the INS had not yet denied their I-829 applications.
We consider these arguments in turn.
II. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL

A. Subtitle B
1. Mootness
Mootness is a question of law reviewed de novo. Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 284 F.3d 1046, 1053 (9th Cir.2002). A case properly brought in the first instance is rendered moot when "interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation." County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 919 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979). The party *919 asserting mootness carries a heavy burden of establishing that no effective relief remains for the court to provide. GATX/Airlog Co. v. United States District Court, 192 F.3d 1304, 1306 (9th Cir.1999). Were Appellants' only claims that they were denied permanent LPR status because they purportedly violated EB-5's requirements by entering limited partnerships subsequent to their formation, the government would have a strong argument for mootness. But the crux of this case, and the focus of the INS's concern, is the presence of redemption agreements and related provisions in Appellants' investment plans. Appellants' I-829 petitions still stand to be rejected, under Subtitle B, if they are not in compliance with the INS's current construction of EB-5 in this respect as well.[5] Because this court has the capacity to grant relief by declaring that the ban on redemption agreements and related provisions could not be applied to Appellants at all, this case is not moot.
2. Exhaustion
Appellants have sought to certify a class action. The government argues that the claim of anyone whose I-829 petition was denied, but who did not file to reopen his or her case by January 1, 2003, should be dismissed as unexhausted; he or she would of necessity thus be excluded from such a proposed class.[6] In deciding whether such petitioners must be excluded from any certified class, we must ask whether and how exhaustion should apply when a new law grants a class of applicants 60 days after its enactment to initiate a new appeals process or else waive all further right to pursue administrative or judicial relief, including pending judicial relief. Whether administrative remedies must be exhausted is a question of law reviewed de novo. Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir.1999).
a. Does Subtitle B establish a new exhaustion requirement? We do not face the question here of whether Congress may enact legislation explicitly extinguishing the right of a class of plaintiffs to sue the government by creating a new administrative remedy that must be invoked within a limited time period to preserve the right. The government's argument is that, by setting a 60-day limit, Congress did so implicitly. Even if Congress could preempt civil suits against the government by suddenly setting imminent deadlines for plaintiffs to avail themselves of such administrative channels in order to retain standing,[7] it does not follow that the courts should 920 apply the principle of exhaustion to require that outcome where Congress's intent *920 to do so is at best implicit. We avoid the issue here because we need only apply well-established principles addressing retroactive application of law.
In the government's view, while Subtitle B granted Chiang and those similarly situated new rights, it also removed others: Chiang gained the right to pursue a new administrative remedy, but immediately lost the right to pursue permanent residence under the rules extant when his I-526 petition was approved. He also would lose the right to pursue relief of any kind if he failed to file a petition by January 1, 2003. Because Congress did not explicitly express its intention to make the statute retroactive, we must ask if Subtitle B, so construed, had an impermissible retroactive application upon Chiang and others whose I-526 approvals are jeopardized by the rejection of their I-829s and the expiration of Subtitle B's deadline. If we find an impermissible retroactive application, we must construe Subtitle B not to impose a new exhaustion requirement on appellants and those similarly situated.
b. Applicable principles of retroactivity analysis: Retroactive application of statutes is disfavored in the absence of clear contrary Congressional intent. See, e.g., Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 352, 119 S.Ct. 1998, 144 L.Ed.2d

347 (1999); Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 270, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). Whether a statute has a retroactive effect is a fairly straightforward question: it is retroactive if it alters the legal consequences of acts completed before its effective date. Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 430, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987). Specifically, a statute has retroactive effect when it "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past." Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269, 114 S.Ct. 1483. In considering a law's retroactive effect, the court's analysis is to be guided by three "familiar considerations" that the Supreme Court has clearly enunciated: reasonable reliance, fair notice, and settled expectations. Id. at 270, 114 S.Ct. 1483.
As the Supreme Court emphasizes in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), the test set forth in Landgraf "`does not purport to define the outer limit of impermissible retroactivity'" but instead "simply describes several `sufficient,' as opposed to `necessary,' conditions for finding retroactivity." Id. at 321 n. 46, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (quoting Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 947, 117 S.Ct. 1871, 138 L.Ed.2d 135 (1997)).[8] In short, Landgraf requires that a court conduct a two-pronged analysis: first, the court must ask whether a law imposes new negative consequences on past actions; second, the court must ask whether those consequences are imposed without fair notice, or in a manner that undermines reasonable reliance or upsets settled expectations.
921 c. Application of retroactivity principles to Subtitle B: Subtitle B, as portrayed by the government, attached a *921 new disability to the previous actions of Immigrant Investors who entered into limited partnerships after their initial formation by establishing a deadline for them to file a form initiating administrative review of their case or lose all right to seek relief. It also imposed a new exhaustion requirement on eligible aliens whose I-829 petitions were rejected for any reason. These actions eliminated what we conclude below is the right of an Immigrant Investor whose I-829 petition had been rejected due to application of the precedent decisions to appeal that decision to district court. This retroactive application of Subtitle B was imposed in violation of the right to fair notice.
The government knew precisely which individuals had had their I-829 petitions rejected based on the rules from the precedent decisions; it had done the rejecting. It also had, at the least, relatively current information about how to contact them. And yet, beyond publication of the potentially life-altering one-sentence deadline within a massive appropriations bill, the government indicated at oral hearing that it took no steps to notify these individuals that they had no more than sixty days to preserve any possibility of judicial review of their case. The government may not take away such rights without fair notice. We do not explore whether providing a longer amount of time, or announcing the new policy more prominently, or individually notifying those to be affected 0907 since the government had that information readily at hand 0907 would have been necessary or sufficient to constitute fair notice. But taking the right of judicial review away from perhaps unrepresented individuals by imposing such a precipitous deadline is a prohibited retroactive application of law.
We therefore construe Subtitle B not to impose an additional exhaustion requirement on those whose I-829 petitions had been rejected before the statute's effective date, but who did not file to reopen their cases by the January 1, 2003 deadline. On remand, the district court must consider certifying classes without respect to whether prospective class members have or have not availed themselves of the opportunity for relief under Subtitle B.[9]
B. Ripeness of claims of Appellants other than Chiang
Ripeness is a question of law reviewed de novo. Daniel v. County of Santa Barbara, 288 F.3d 375, 380 (9th Cir.2002). It turns on the constitutional consideration of "whether the plaintiffs face a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury" from the challenged act, City of Auburn v. Qwest Corp., 260 F.3d 1160, 1171 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted), and on the prudential considerations of whether the issue is fit for decision and whether parties will suffer hardship if the court declines to consider it. Id. at 1172-73. This court "does not require Damocles's sword to fall before we recognize the realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury." Id. at 1171. Here, the INS has already failed to act upon Plaintiffs' I-829 petitions within the 90-day period required by statute.

8 C.F.R. § 216.6(c)(1). It is undisputed that Appellants' I-829 petitions will be rejected if the standards of the precedent decisions are applied to them.
922 *922 As the district court noted, ordinarily under Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993) a formal denial of an alien's application on the disputed grounds is required, but if denial is certain review will not be barred based on ripeness. Id. at 69-71, 113 S.Ct. 2485 (O'Connor concurring). In Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1436 (9th Cir. 1996), this court expressly adopted the "firm prediction" rule from Justice O'Connor's Catholic Social Services concurrence, which eliminates the need to await an inevitable application of a regulation to a plaintiff before determining a claim to be justiciable.
Prudential considerations also favor review. The issues remaining are legal and do not require further factual development. The uncertain state of the law is sufficient hardship to prompt judicial review, see Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 581, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985), but Appellants' businesses are also suffering from lack of clarity about their prospects. Delay injures Appellants' hopes for obtaining permanent residence status, and if their position is indeed futile, they would best abandon their present course and start again. Nothing is gained from postponement, either from the aliens' or the government's perspective. Accordingly, the district court erred when it dismissed the claims of the Appellants other than Chiang as not ripe for review. Ripeness is not a bar to this action, and the district court must consider the merits of class certification.
C. Subject matter jurisdiction to review denial of Chiang's I-826 petition
The government argues that EB-5 sets forth an administrative process requiring that appeals of the rejection of I-829 petitions take place solely through removal hearings, and thus that the district court had no jurisdiction to hear Chiang's claim. This raises the questions of whether the APA requires that these administrative review procedures be exhausted before an appeal is brought to the district court, and whether the administrative review process offered by the INS is adequate. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1024 (9th Cir.2001).
1. Must administrative review be exhausted?
The district court properly asserted jurisdiction to review the denial of Chiang's I-829 petition because 8 U.S.C. § 1186b (INA § 216A) does not state that review of such a denial must occur exclusively in removal proceedings. Absent language foreclosing immediate judicial review, a district court's subject matter jurisdiction is unaffected by the availability of non-mandatory administrative procedures. See, e.g., Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 154, 113 S.Ct. 2539, 125 L.Ed.2d 113 (1993) ("[W]here the APA applies, an appeal to `superior agency authority' is a prerequisite to judicial review only when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review and the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review.") (emphasis in original). The government reads the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(c)(3)(D) 0907 "[A]ny alien whose permanent residence status is terminated under subparagraph (C) may request a review ... in a proceeding to remove the alien" 0907 as establishing an exclusive review process. However, while this language permits an alien to elect initial administrative review, it does not expressly mandate that course.
923 *923 Given the courts' deference to agency interpretation of their governing statutes, however, see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), we do not end our analysis here. If the INS's interpretation of § 1186b(c)(3)(D) were to be accepted, administrative review would still be required only if that review provides an adequate remedy. See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 901, 108 S.Ct. 2722, 101 L.Ed.2d 749 (1988) (finding that a statute providing for administrative review does not bar relief, since the "doubtful and limited relief available ... is not an adequate substitute for review in the District Court.") We therefore consider the adequacy of the administrative review.

2. Is administrative review adequate?
In Winterberger v. General Teamsters Auto Truck Drivers & Helpers, 558 F.2d 923 (9th Cir.1977), we stated:
Ordinarily, a court possesses jurisdiction to review an ... administrative-like proceeding whether or not the aggrieved party has exhausted administrative remedies. But as a matter of sound policy, courts usually decline to intercede and in most instances act within their discretion in doing so. However, there are occasions when a court is obliged to exercise its jurisdiction and is guilty of an abuse of discretion if it does not, the most familiar examples perhaps being when resort to the administrative route is futile or the remedy inadequate.
Id. at 925 (citations omitted). In assessing whether this court has jurisdiction, "the Administrative Procedure Act's generous [judicial] review provisions must be given a hospitable interpretation." Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140-141, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld an aggrieved party's prompt access to the district court when it provides greater redress and broader opportunity to develop a claim than is available in a more limited statutory scheme. See, e.g., Bowen, 487 U.S. at 904, 108 S.Ct. 2722; McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 496-97, 111 S.Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991); Bowen v. Michigan Acad. of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 670, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986).
Here Appellants' access to removal proceedings is an inadequate substitute for prompt access to judicial review. The denial of an I-829 petition is a final and nonappealable agency action, see 5 U.S.C. § 704, with immediate concrete injuries. Upon termination of LPR status, aliens must surrender their "Permanent Resident Cards" upon request and cannot lawfully work in the country without special documentation that can be revoked at any time. 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d)(2). The clock begins to run on their period of "unlawful presence" in the country, which can lead to their exclusion from the country for up to ten years. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B). Furthermore, because the INS need not commence removal proceedings immediately, conditioning aliens' access to an Article III court on their first having undergone removal proceedings would leave them in limbo in the interim. Should they lose an appeal, final orders of removal carry an additional ten-year bar to seeking readmission to the United States. Id. § 1182(a) (9)(A)(ii).
Removal proceedings are not designed to develop an adequate record for judicial review of the issues at stake for these appellants, but rather to test the veracity of the petition, which is not what is at issue in this case. See id. 924 § 1186b(c)(3)(D) ("[T]he burden of proof shall be on the *924 Attorney General to establish ... that the facts and information... alleged in the petition are not true with respect to the qualifying commercial enterprise.")
The immigration judge in removal proceedings cannot hear the sorts of claims at issue here, which include whether equitable relief is available, whether APA notice and comment was required before promulgating new rules, and whether constitutional claims challenging the rule of law applied in their case. Such claims lie outside the scope and jurisdiction of the immigration judges and the BIA. For example, the BIA has held that even though district courts may apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the INS 0907 relief requested in this case 0907 administrative judges may not. Matter of Hernandez-Puente, 20 I. & N. Dec. 335, 338-39, 1991 WL 353520 (BIA 1991). The BIA has likewise disclaimed authority to adjudicate APA claims, also at issue in this case. See Matter of Hector Ponce De Leon-Ruiz, 21 I. & N. Dec. 154, 165, 1996 WL 23408 (BIA 1996) ("[The BIA does not] assess [] regulatory compliance with the APA, ... [and should make no] observations in this area where we lack expertise. We ourselves are exclusively a creature of the Attorney General's regulations, and we have properly left it to the courts to resolve questions of APA compliance."). Finally, the BIA has also disclaimed authority to consider constitutional claims in removal hearings. See Matter of Cenatice, 16 I. & N. Dec. 162, 166, 1977 WL 39241 (BIA 1977) ("[I]t is not within the province of this Board to pass upon the constitutionality of the statutes it administers, but rather is solely within the power and capacity of the United States courts to declare them unconstitutional."). As a result, removal hearings would not establish a record on the critical issues; statutory appeal would be to our court.

The limitation on the scope of removal proceedings is particularly problematic because we would be limited to this inadequate record by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A): "With respect to review of an order of removal ... the court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based." Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) mandates that "administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." Cases requiring factual development beyond the scope of removal proceedings are generally channeled to the district court, which will afford more full appellate review. See, e.g., Mohammadi-Motlagh v. INS, 727 F.2d 1450, 1452-53 (9th Cir.1984) ("The BIA lacked authority to hear and determine these factual issues and did not do so. We are therefore without jurisdiction to consider these claims. They must be raised in the first instance in the district court."). Given the above, we hold that even if the APA did require that administrative remedies be exhausted before recourse to Article III courts, removal proceedings are not adequate for this purpose.
3. Ripeness of Chiang's claim.
The government argues that Chiang's claim is not yet ripe for adjudication, because he has not yet been subjected to the removal process, and urges that this court wait to rule on this issue until he appeals from a removal order. For reasons expressed in our previous discussion of ripeness, and because we find the removal process inadequate to the task at hand, we hold that Chiang's appeal was ripe for adjudication, and that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over it.
D. Improper Retroactive Effect
925 The district court dismissed Chiang's claims that the precedent decisions violated *925 APA notice and comment rulemaking provisions and were barred by estoppel, but it refused to dismiss Chiang's claim that the precedent decisions were improperly retroactive. The district court remanded Chiang's I-829 petition to the INS to apply factors presented in Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.1982) for determining the propriety of retroactively applying the precedent decisions.
1. Jurisdiction.
Appellants assert that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the government's counterclaim because the district court's remand to the INS for a retroactivity analysis is not a final and appealable order, but interlocutory. We construe the remand as a decision to require exhaustion of administrative remedies. "The basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence 0907 to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies." Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34, 37, 92 S.Ct. 815, 31 L.Ed.2d 17 (1972). Since record development is unnecessary and the INS has no special expertise to do the retroactivity analysis, we interpret the remand to be an offer to the agency to correct its error. We review for abuse of discretion the decision of the court to require exhaustion. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Carter & Tillery Enters., 133 F.3d 1183, 1187 (9th Cir.1998).
The Supreme Court instructs that final order jurisdiction is to be given a "practical rather than a technical construction," Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 379 U.S. 148, 152, 85 S.Ct. 308, 13 L.Ed.2d 199 (1964). One justification for hearing interlocutory appeals is to avoid a "totally wasted proceeding below." Stone v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 464, 467 (9th Cir.1983). Here, the INS contends that it has no authority to apply the Montgomery Ward factors outside of a removal proceeding, and no such proceeding has come before it.
We are persuaded by the government's argument that, given the INS's stance, a remand to that agency now would simply waste judicial resources. The INS holds fast to its position that it cannot conduct such an analysis outside of a removal proceeding, and there is no need to force it to do so. See Young v. Reno, 114 F.3d 879, 881-82 (9th Cir.1997) (noting exception to exhaustion requirement where recourse within the agency is futile); Winterberger, 558 F.2d at 925. "An abuse of discretion occurs if the court applies the correct law to facts which are not clearly erroneous but rules in an irrational manner." United States v. Sherburne, 249 F.3d 1121, 1125-26

(9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the district judge was admirably solicitous of the INS in offering it the opportunity to conduct a retroactivity analysis in the first instance, wasting judicial resources by remanding to the INS for it to do what it firmly states it may not and will not do is irrational, even if well-motivated. The district court was itself fully capable of doing what it asked the INS to do against its will. The remand was thus an abuse of discretion. We accept jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal to decide the retroactivity claim.
2. Reaching the retroactivity analysis

In refusing to dismiss Appellants' claim on the pleadings, the district court stated:

[I]n denying Plaintiff Chiang's I-829 petition, the INS relied largely on principles announced in the

926

Precedent Decisions. In effect, having already approved Plaintiff Chiang's investment *926

program by virtue of its approval of his I-526 petition, the INS effectively changed the rules of the

game by judging Plaintiff Chiang's I-829 petition under the Precedent Decisions even though

Plaintiff Chiang had not altered his previously approved investment program, and had not acted in

a way which would otherwise justify denial of the I-829, but for the Precedent Decisions.

The district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. We agree with its consequent analysis. The government raises three arguments as to why a retroactivity analysis is inappropriate, each of which is unavailing.

a. Retroactive application is not a "hardship factor". While the government continues to argue that retroactivity is a "hardship factor" that has no place in analysis of I-829 petitions, the district court correctly noted that Montgomery Ward did not involve applying hardship factors, but "a wholly different analysis ... that examines degree of burden on the parties." A finding of impermissible retroactivity would not waive compliance with the new EB-5 requirements as a matter of beneficence due to hardship, but would refuse to impose the new requirements because Appellants had the legal right to have their petitions "grandfathered" under the previous standards.

b. A finding of retroactive application is not foreclosed by prior case law. We reject the government's contention that the question of improper retroactive application of the precedent decisions against Appellants was resolved in R.L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS, 273 F.3d 874 (9th Cir.2001) ("RLILP") (adopting in full the district court's decision in R.L. Investment Limited Partners v. INS, 86 F.Supp.2d 1014 (D.Haw., 2000)).[10] The RLILP plaintiffs were not situated similarly to Appellants in the instant case: as their I-526 petitions had not been approved, they had no reliance interest comparable to that of Appellants. They challenged the prospective application of the precedent decisions to their new unapproved I-526 applications, on the basis that the INS had violated the APA in changing what they contended was its longstanding policy of allowing redemption agreements and related provisions. By contrast, because Appellants' own I-526 petitions had been approved, and they had acted relying on that approval, a different mix of considerations guide the appropriate analysis. Furthermore, RLILP's holding that the precedent decisions did not "effect a change in existing law" applied only to 8 C.F.R. § 204.6, which governs review of I-526 petitions. The question we face is whether applying the precedent decisions to I-829 petitions effects a change in 8 C.F.R. § 216.6, which governs review of I-829 petitions. This question is analytically distinct from that before the RLILP court.[11]

c. I-829 applications need not receive ab initio review. The crux of the government's position is that the 927 Montgomery *927 Ward retroactivity concerns do not apply to EB-5 applications, because EB-5 requires a "fresh
demonstration of compliance with statutory standards at the I-829 stage." However, if I-526 approval is decoupled from I-829 approval, then petitioners whose I-526 petitions had been approved would have no reasonable reliance that the rules set out in 8 C.F.R. § 216.6 would not change in midstream. If, on the other hand, approval of the I-526 petition was an official provisional approval of the petitioner's plan, contingent on its effectuation, then a retroactivity analysis is required.

The EB-5 statute requires that each I-829 petition "shall contain facts and information demonstrating that 0907 (A) a commercial enterprise was established by the alien; (B) the alien invested or was actively in the process of investing the requisite capital; and (C) the alien sustained [these actions] throughout the period of the alien's residence in the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1). In 8 C.F.R. § 216.6(d), examples of the appropriate

documentation include tax returns, to show that the enterprise was in fact established; an audited financial statement, to show that the alien had actually invested; and bank statements, invoices, receipts, contracts, business licenses, and payroll records to show that the petitioner had sustained the actions throughout the two year conditional residence period. This is in marked contrast to the documentation requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(j), governing approval of the I-526 petition. We will not review the several pages of requirements listed in this subsection; suffice it to say that they require a much more comprehensive documentation of the petitioner's plans and resources.
The language of 8 U.S.C. § 1186b(d)(1) and the contrast between the documentation requirements of the regulations at each stage of the approval process strongly support the view that I-829 approval is a procedure intended to confirm that the petitioner fulfilled the plan set out in the I-526 petition. The government's contention that I-829 approval proceeds ab initio 0907 and that I-526 approval therefore may not be relied upon as setting forth a plan that, if followed, will lead to I-829 approval 0907 is not sustainable. The government argues that I-526 approval neither guarantees nor predicts I-829 approval, but the latter is clearly untrue. I-526 approval does not guarantee I-829 approval 0907 the petitioner might not successfully "sustain the actions ... throughout the period of ... residence" 0907 but it certainly predicts it. No one obtains I-829 approval without prior I-526 approval. The government provides no reason to believe that the combination of I-526 approval, successful execution of the approved plan, and absence of material misrepresentation in the I-526 petition 0907 all characteristics that Appellants claim apply to them 0907 was not an excellent predictor of I-829 approval up until the precedent decisions appeared.
We conclude that Appellants reasonably relied on the application of 8 C.F.R. § 216.6 extant when their I-526 petitions were approved. We conclude that the INS's refashioning of 8 C.F.R. § 216.6 into an independent ab initio assessment of Appellants' satisfaction of the EB-5 program standards raises serious retroactivity concerns.
d. Initial retroactivity analysis may be conducted by this court. For the above reasons, we affirm the district court's refusal to dismiss the retroactivity claim. We further conclude that the record is already sufficiently developed to allow us to undertake the retroactivity analysis. The parties briefed the issue of retroactivity and application of the 928 Montgomery Ward factors and argued the issue *928 before the district court. "Although we ordinarily do not consider an issue not passed upon below, the decision to resolve a question for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals.... It is sometimes appropriate for an appellate court to pass on issues of law that the trial court did not consider." City of Auburn, 260 F.3d at 1173 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Application of the Montgomery Ward factors is now purely a matter of applying the law. We are as well situated as the district court to perform this retroactivity analysis. We elect to do so.
3. Merits of the retroactivity claim
In Montgomery Ward, this court adopted the five-factor analytical framework set forth in Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390-93 (D.C.Cir.1972). This test balances a regulated party's interest in being able to rely on the terms of a rule as it is written against an agency's interest in retroactive application of an adjudicatory decision:
Among the considerations that enter into a resolution of the problem are (1) whether the particular case is one of first impression, (2) whether the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well established practice or merely attempts to fill a void in an unsettled area of law, (3) the extent to which the party against whom the new rule is applied relied on the former rule, (4) the degree of the burden which a retroactive order imposes on a party, and (5) the statutory interest in applying a new rule despite the reliance of a party on the old standard.
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. FTC, 691 F.2d 1322, 1333 (9th Cir.1982).
The present case is one of first impression, which weighs in the government's favor. But the next two factors weigh heavily in Appellants' favor. The INS's history of approving I-829 petitions without respect to the presence of redemption agreements and related provisions was a well established practice. The approval of Appellants' own I-526 petitions containing such provisions shows that this practice continued at least until shortly before the

publication of the precedent decisions; the rules introduced in those decisions were an abrupt departure. Appellants also relied on their understanding that their business and investment plans conformed to the requirements of EB-5. They sold businesses, uprooted from their homelands, and moved to the U.S. They had assurance that the redemption agreements and related provisions in their business plans would not obstruct their applications for permanent residency.
We now turn to balancing the burdens on the parties. The new regulations impose a substantial burden upon Appellants. Appellants are given a choice: either they invest or commit to reinvest large sums of money immediately, or they and their dependents must leave the United States. The latter course would mean starting the process of applying to the EB-5 program over again, with uncertain results, or possibly subject to bar on reentry given their deemed unlawful presence in the United States. Either alternative involves substantial sacrifice.
The government argues that Appellants have suffered no burden, since they can ask for their money back from the limited partnerships in which they invested. But the burden at issue is not merely whether Appellants can now recoup their investments if they have not already done so. It also involves whether the time and expense put into 929 their good faith efforts to *929 obtain LPR status will have been squandered. The government also argues that to the extent that Appellants severed ties to their home countries, they did so at their own risk and not on the basis of any assurances from the INS. This argument misses the point in an instructive way. Appellants sought no guarantee of success, but a contingent promise that, if they held up their end of the bargain by fulfilling the terms of their approved I-526 petitions, they would obtain the LPR status promised by the EB-5 program. This was not unreasonable.
Against the burdens on Appellants weighs the factor of the INS's statutory interest in applying the new rule to these Appellants and those similarly situated. That interest is insufficiently substantial to outweigh the other factors. We do not fault the INS for determining that its earlier approvals of I-526 petitions interpreted the EB-5 program in ways that arguably contravened Congressional intent. It then closed what it considered to be a set of loopholes. We will assume arguendo that its initial policy was mistaken and its remedial efforts justified.
The consequences of the INS's mistake are not overwhelming. If a class action is certified, approximately 250 Immigrant Investors and perhaps 350 more of their dependents may be granted permanent residency. The government has never argued that this class of Immigrant Investors did not act in good faith, nor that the efforts they undertook to avail themselves of the EB-5 program were negligible. From Appellants' perspective, the INS's approving and receiving the benefits of their investments, only to renege on the promise of LPR status once those benefits were garnered, must seem very unfair. It is hard to imagine how the INS has a compelling statutory interest in such an outcome. Congress has not repealed the EB-5 program; it still intends for it to continue. The reputation and integrity of the EB-5 program is ill-served by the proposition that INS approval of an I-526 petition as satisfying EB-5's requirements cannot be relied upon.
On balance, after applying the Montgomery Ward factors, we conclude that the application of the INS's intended change in the function of I-829 review is impermissibly retroactive as applied to Appellants.
4. Implications of the retroactivity analysis
Ultimately, the INS's fundamental argument is simply that it is not authorized to certify that Appellants' I-829 petitions satisfy the requirements of EB-5 in light of the precedent decisions. The INS's position that it cannot grandfather Appellants' petitions under its previous construction of EB-5 of its own accord is understandable. But, the INS certainly can do so pursuant to a court order requiring that in reviewing the I-829 petitions of those whose I-526 petitions had already been approved, it may not apply the rules introduced in the 1998 precedent decisions because such action fails the balancing test of Montgomery Ward.
Because we rule that the INS may not apply the rules introduced in the precedent decisions in evaluating Appellants' I-829 petitions, we need not address Appellants' estoppel and APA notice and comment claims, as they would afford Appellants no additional relief even were we to reverse the district court.

III. CONCLUSION
All of Appellants' claims were ripe, none were moot, no further exhaustion of the administrative process was necessary, and no statute ousted our jurisdiction. We also have jurisdiction over the government's counterclaim.
930 *930 Retroactive application of the new rules adopted by the 1998 precedent decisions to Appellants' I-829 petitions is impermissible. The INS may not apply the rules established in the 1998 precedent decisions in reviewing the I-829 petitions of those whose I-526 petitions had been approved before those new rules were promulgated. The remaining issue in this case is whether one or more plaintiffs' classes should be certified; we remand back to the district court for that determination. This panel will retain jurisdiction over all future appeals deriving from these claims. Costs are taxed against the United States. The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
[*] The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
[1] The twenty-nine limited partnerships in which the Immigrant Investors invested were plaintiffs in the original action and are listed on the Notice of Appeal, but no appeal is taken from the district court's ruling denying them standing. Six of the Immigrant Investors among them have a total of sixteen dependents who are also nominal Appellants. The term "Appellants" will refer only to the Immigrant Investors.
[2] To qualify for the program, applicants must invest $1,000,000 (or half that amount in certain targeted areas) in new enterprises that create at least ten full-time permanent jobs for U.S. workers. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(A)(i)(iii), (C). Other requirements also apply, including some of those at issue in this case.
[3] For ease of reference, we will refer to all of the contested features of Appellants' investments as "redemption agreements and related provisions."
[4] This is not a typical remand, but rather an invitation to the agency to reconsider its position that the precedent decisions could be applied to those in Chiang's position in light of the claim of impermissible retroactivity. The INS had previously refused a proposal for a voluntary remand to conduct such an analysis, contending that it had no statutory right to consider "hardship factors" in evaluating I-829 petitions, and stating that such arguments should be raised in removal proceedings. It reiterates these arguments in the current proceedings.
[5] The government argues that Subtitle B affords Appellants the opportunity, even now, to comply with the new regulations. But doing so could require an EB-5 petitioner who had already recouped his investment through a redemption agreement to rapidly collect as much as $1,000,000 and reinvest it in a company under terms that, he argues, were not required of him at the time his I-526 petition was approved. This is not an equivalent substitute for the relief requested from this court.
[6] We do not know whether Chiang filed to reopen his petition by that deadline. But given the number of others who were similarly situated, the question of whether, after enactment of Subtitle B, they must be excluded from any possible proposed class is nevertheless before us. Unlike Chiang, they would not all be involved in a pending lawsuit. The likelihood of some not having known of or met the deadline is high.
[7] Subtitle B is contained in a large appropriation bill. Whether Appellant Chiang and those similarly situated knew of its imminent deadline in sufficient time to react to it, we can say with certainty only that this court did not. The government's motion to dismiss for mootness reached this court on January 21, 2003, precisely twenty days after the deadline expired and twenty days before this case was heard.
[8] No single consideration is essential. Retroactivity analysis under Landgraf requires independent analysis of whatever factors may apply, any of which can ground a finding of impermissible retroactive application. See, e.g., Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 275, 282, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (independently assessing reasonable reliance and fair notice); United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2002) (independently assessing fair notice and settled expectations). Reasonable reliance may itself be based upon a quid pro quo, as in St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at

320-25, 121 S.Ct. 2271 or merely on assurances as to the current status of the law, see, e.g., Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S. at 951-52, 117 S.Ct. 1871.
[9] The government argues that the motion for class certification was untimely under local circuit rules. But the motion was not denied for this reason, and the court never suggested that it would be; the stated reason for dismissal was mootness. In any event, Plaintiffs had filed a motion to enlarge the time for filing, which the district court never ruled upon due to its mootness ruling.
[10] The opinion of our court came down after the district court opinion in this case. Because the argument that the INS's rules were retroactive had not been raised before the district court, the appellate panel rejected it as defaulted without reaching the merits. RLILP, 273 F.3d at 874-75.
[11] It is also immaterial that, as the government argues, "the final result of an adjudicatory proceeding will [always] have a retroactive effect on the positions of parties to that proceeding," because Appellants were not parties to the precedent decisions. However, the fact that Appellants were not parties to the precedent decisions does not obviate the need for a retroactivity analysis; rules generated through adjudications are not exempt from such analysis.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.