1552624A12081607

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION

:

:

:

Case No.: 21 MC 102 (AKH)

(all actions identified in the table 

attached hereto)

THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO ALL LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

:

:

:

_____________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANTS DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST 

CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AND DB 

PRIVATE CLIENTS CORPORATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER 

AND/OR STAY OF DEFENDANTS TULLY CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.

AND TULLY INDUSTRIES, INC.

______________________________________________________________________________

DAY PITNEY LLP

7 Times Square

New York, New York 10036-7311

(212) 297 5800

Attorneys for Defendants

Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and

DB Private Clients Corporation

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.................................................................................................2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................4

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................7

I. THE NATURE OF A PLAINTIFF’S WORK, NOT THE 

LOCATION OF THE WORK, SHOULD BE THE 

DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING THE 

DOCKET TO WHICH A PLAINTIFF’S CASE IS 

DESIGNATED....................................................................................................7

II. THE RECORD FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY 

OF THE MOTION CASES BELONG IN THE 21 MC 100 

DOCKET.............................................................................................................8

A. Ninety-Eight Plaintiffs Did Not Work For Tully.......................................9

B. No Plaintiffs Fit Within Tully’s Defined Scope of 

Work as a City Contractor........................................................................9

C. Over 75% of Plaintiffs Identify Themselves as 

“Cleaners” or “Handlers”. ...................................................................... 11

III. TULLY’S APPARENT PREFERENCE TO HAVE ALL 

OF ITS CASES RESIDE IN ONE DOCKET SHOULD 

NOT PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHTS OF OTHER 

PARTIES........................................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 12

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 2 of 15
- 2-

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, individually and formerly known as Bankers 

Trust Company, and also incorrectly pleaded as Deutsche Bank Trust Company; DB Private 

Clients Corp., formerly known as BT Private Clients Corp.; and Deutsche Bank Trust 

Corporation, individually, and formerly known as Bankers Trust Corporation and Bankers Trust 

New York Corporation (collectively, the “Deutsche Bank Defendants”) submit this 

memorandum of law in opposition to the Motion To Transfer1of defendants Tully Construction 

Co., Inc. and Tully Industries, Inc. (collectively “Tully”). Tully’s motion seeks the transfer of 

100 cases from Consolidated Master Docket Number 21 MC 102 docket (“21 MC 102”) to 

Consolidated Master Docket Number 21 MC 100 (“21 MC 100”). However, Tully’s arguments 

in support of the requested transfers misconstrue this Court’s prior orders in this litigation and 

are not borne out by the current record of this case. 

Tully’s primary argument is that all of the cases it seeks to transfer (the “Motion Cases”) 

involve the former Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street, which is defined as part of the 

“World Trade Center Site” under Case Management Order No. 3 in 21 MC 100 (“CMO 3”). 

(Certification of Marc D. Crowley, dated August 15, 2007 (“Crowley Cert.”), Ex. A). Therefore, 

according to Tully, these cases should be administratively designated to 21 MC 100. However, 

this Court has made it abundantly clear that the “World Trade Center Site” definition, which was 

adopted during the early stages of this litigation, was not to be used for any purpose other than 

construing the provisions of CMO 3, and should not be read in a manner that would affect any of 

the parties’ substantive rights. 

1

 The Deutsche Bank Defendants do not oppose Tully’s motion to the extent that it seeks a stay of claims against 

Tully which remain in the 21 MC 102 docket. 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 3 of 15
- 3-

Tully asserts that the claims against it in the Motion Cases could only have arisen from 

work that Tully performed as a City contractor, and on that basis argues that 21 MC 100 is the 

appropriate docket. For this argument, Tully relies on this Court’s treatment of the Steven

Zablocki case, Civil Action No. 06-cv-15494. This Court previously ordered that Mr. Zablocki’s 

action properly belongs in 21 MC 100 because it involves claims by a plaintiff who, although he 

worked in the Deutsche Bank Building, was in fact bringing a claim against Tully arising from 

Tully’s work as a City contractor. This argument does not apply to the Motion Cases:

 98 out of the 100 plaintiffs in the Motion Cases do not allege that they worked either for 

Tully or one of Tully’s identified subcontractors (see Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at lines 14 

and 99, at column D);

 97 out of the 100 plaintiffs in the Motion Cases allege work at the Deutsche Bank 

Building outside of the scope of Tully’s work as defined by Tully (see Id., at lines 3, 34 

and 54, at column H);

 None of the three plaintiffs in the Motion Cases that fit within the scope of work as 

defined by Tully actually allege work for Tully or its subcontractors; (see Id., at lines 3, 

34 and 54, at column D;

 Two of the three plaintiffs in the Motion Cases that fit within the scope of work as 

defined by Tully also allege work at other buildings outside of Tully’s defined scope (see 

Id., at lines 3, 34 and 54, at column E); and

 Over three-quarters of the plaintiffs in the Motion Cases allege that they worked as 

“handlers” or “cleaners”–jobs that are entirely different from Mr. Zablocki’s work as a 

“steel cutter”(see Id., at ¶11; Ex. B, at column F).

Tully has overlooked the fact that over 60% of the Motion Cases also involve locations 

outside of the CMO 3 definition of the World Trade Center Site. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at 

column G). This motion has implications beyond Tully’s preference to have its cases 

consolidated into one docket – the docket designation for these cases affects many other 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 4 of 15
- 4-

defendants.2 Based upon the current record, the Motion Cases belong in the 21 MC 102 docket, 

and Tully’s motion should be denied.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

On February 7, 2005, this Court entered CMO 3, which defined the “World Trade Center 

Site” to include, among other locations, the Deutsche Bank Building at Liberty and Greenwich 

Streets. As stated in CMO 3, this definition was provided “for the sole purpose of construing the 

provisions of CMO No. 3 and may not be utilized or cited by the parties for any other purpose.” 

On August 9, 2005, this Court entered an unnumbered Case Management Order in 21 

MC 100, which directed that “[c]ases brought by plaintiffs – such as clean-up personnel –

alleging personal injury primarily based on circumstances and conduct in the period after the 

September 11, 2002 attacks, and based on conduct that occurred outside the [CMO 3 “World 

Trade Center Site” definition] would be designated under 21 MC 102. (Crowley Cert., Ex. C, at 

¶3). That order further directed that the 21 MC 102 cases would be coordinated in a separate 

docket (at least in part) because of “plaintiff’s desire to have issues of fact and law unique to 

these cases supervised on a separate basis.” (Id.).

On March 28, 2007, this Court entered Case Management Order No. 1 in Master Docket 

No. 21 MC 103 (“21 MC 103”). (Crowley Cert., Ex. D). By that Order docket 21 MC 103 was 

established for plaintiffs claiming injury as a result of work performed both at the World Trade 

Center Site (as defined in CMO 3) and at other sites. (Id.).

On March 21, 2007, this Court entered Case Management Order No. 3 in 21 MC 102. 

(Crowley Cert., Ex. E). That Order required that each plaintiff file individual check off 

2

 At page 4, footnote 6 of its brief, Tully claims that its substantive rights may be impacted by designation of the 

Transfer Cases to the 21 MC 102 docket. Tully fails to acknowledge that many other defendants’ substantive rights 

may be impacted by its recommended docket designation. 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 5 of 15
- 5-

complaints detailing “specific locations worked.” (Id., at ¶4). The deadline for filing such 

complaints was June 1, 2007. (Id. at ¶5). Check-Off complaints, including those which are the 

subject of Tully’s current motion, have since been filed and served. Most of these Check-Off 

complaints contain abbreviated work histories for each plaintiff, identifying job titles, names of 

employers, and locations worked. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B). 

On or about March 29, 2007, plaintiff Steven Zablocki requested that this Court transfer 

his case from the 21 MC 100 docket, which is subject to a stay by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit, to the 21 MC 102 docket, which is not stayed. This Court 

denied Mr. Zablocki’s motion to transfer because: (a) Mr. Zablocki’s complaint alleged that he 

worked at the Deutsche Bank Building, a building which fell within the CMO 3 “World Trade 

Center Site” definition; and (b) Mr. Zablocki alleged that he worked for Tully Construction 

Company, Inc., one of the contractors that joined the City of New York’s interlocutory appeal. 

However, Tully fails to note that defense counsel in the Zablocki matter did not receive notice of 

plaintiff’s request and therefore did not have the opportunity to present their respective positions 

concerning Mr. Zablocki’s request before the Court’s ruling. Mr. Zablocki alleged that he 

worked only for Tully,3 whereas 98 of the 100 plaintiffs in the Motion Cases allege that they did 

no work for Tully (or a Tully subcontractor). (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at columns D and E). 

Mr. Zablocki alleged that he worked only at the Deutsche Bank Building, whereas 61 of the 

plaintiffs in the Motion Cases allege additional work at buildings outside of the CMO 3 

definition of the “World Trade Center Site.” (See Id., at column G).

As this litigation has progressed, questions have arisen as to the purpose and impact of 

the CMO 3 “World Trade Center Site” definition, and this Court has reemphasized its position 

3

 Zablocki alleged that he worked for Manfort Brothers, Inc., which was a Tully subcontractor.

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 6 of 15
- 6-

that substantive rights should not be impacted by how the cases are categorized through their 

designation to the various dockets. (Crowley Cert., Ex. F, at 21:3-7). This Court has also 

explained that the CMO 3 “World Trade Center Site”definition was a technical one, and the 

“only definition that was at hand” at the time of the original order. (Id., at 15:16 and 16:11-12). 

This Court has determined that cases designated to the 21 MC 100 docket should involve claims 

focused mainly against the City and its contractors because the City’s Department of Design and 

Construction (“DDC”) had taken the lead in the work at the World Trade Center. (Id., at 15:17-

20). Cases designated to the 21 MC 102 docket should involve private entities other than the 

City, the DDC, or their contractors. (Id., at 15:21-23).

The issue which is the subject of this motion surfaced more recently in the parties’ joint 

submission to this Court dated August 1, 2007. (Crowley Cert., Ex. G). This joint submission is 

awaiting the court’s consideration and concerns Tully’s request to transfer the Kirk Arsenault

case (Civil Action No. 04-cv-5338) from 21 MC 102 to 21 MC 100. (Id.). The Deutsche Bank 

Defendants joined Tully’s application for transfer because the work performed by plaintiff 

Arsenault, like that of plaintiff Zablocki, was construction work for a City contractor. (Id., p. 2, 

fn. 2). However, the Deutsche Bank Defendants did not concede and do not agree that the CMO 

3 World Trade Center Site definition was dispositive of the Arsenault transfer application 

because, “it is the nature of a given plaintiff’s work, not just the location, that should dictate 

whether the case is designated to 21 MC 100 or 21 MC 102.” (Id.).

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 7 of 15
- 7-

ARGUMENT

I. THE NATURE OF A PLAINTIFF’S WORK, NOT 

THE LOCATION OF THE WORK, SHOULD BE 

THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING 

THE DOCKET TO WHICH A PLAINTIFF’S CASE 

IS DESIGNATED

Tully argues for a mechanical approach to designating cases within specific dockets, an 

appraisal which would turn only upon whether or not a complaint includes a location that falls 

within the World Trade Center Site definition found within CMO 34. However, CMO 3 makes 

clear that this definition is not to be used or cited by the parties for any purpose other than 

construing that particular order. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. A). This Court has also subsequently 

stated that its rationale for designating cases to certain dockets is not purely geographic. As this 

litigation has evolved, it has become apparent that the nature of a plaintiff’s work, not simply the 

geographic location of such work, should be the determining factor in whether his or her case is 

designated to 21 MC 100, 21 MC 102, or 21 MC 103.

Although this Court has not ruled as such, the Court’s statements at the June 15, 2007 

Case Management Conference indicate that the reason for designating certain cases to 21 MC 

100 was that those cases involved DDC work, and that, at the time CMO 3 was entered, the 

“World Trade Center Site” definition was simply a technical (and the best available) definition to 

segregate those cases. (Crowley Cert., Ex. E, at 15:16, 16:11-12, and 15:17-23). This Court’s 

ruling in the Zablocki matter (which simply maintained the existing docket designation for that 

case) is also consistent with that reasoning.

4

 If this Court were to mechanically approach case designation solely based upon geography, over 60% of the 

subject cases would more properly be designated to the 21 MC 103 docket, because they implicate locations both 

within and without the World Trade Center Site definition established in CMO 3. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at 

column G).

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 8 of 15
- 8-

The Deutsche Bank Defendants have also maintained a consistent position in this regard. 

They joined in Tully’s pending request to transfer the matter of plaintiff Kirk Arsenault (Civil 

Action No. 04-cv-5338) from the 21 MC 102 docket to the 21 MC 100 docket. Like Mr. 

Zablocki, Mr. Arsenault alleged that he worked only for a Tully subcontractor, in the Deutsche 

Bank Building, and at the apparent direction of the DDC. However, by that joinder, the 

Deutsche Bank Defendants did not agree to the redesignation of the Motion Cases to the 21 MC 

100 docket because, as explained in Point II below, the record does not support Tully’s premise, 

i.e., that the plaintiffs in the Motion Cases performed DDC work at the Deutsche Bank Building. 

II. THE RECORD FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE 

THAT ANY OF THE MOTION CASES BELONG

IN THE 21 MC 100 DOCKET

Tully states that each of the Motion Cases involves claims against Tully arising from its 

work as a City contractor, and, as such, should be designated to the 21 MC 100 docket. Tully 

then argues that each of these cases is analogous to the Zablocki matter and that the Court should 

designate the Motion Cases to the 21 MC 100 docket, as it did the Zablocki case. The 

information from Mr. Zablocki’s complaint relevant to this comparison is that: (1) “Tully was 

acting in the capacity of the general contractor and/or construction manager” and “Tully retained 

Plaintiff’s employer, Manfort Brothers;” (2) Mr. Zablocki did not do any work for any company 

other than Tully or a Tully subcontractor; and (3) all of his work was done at the Deutsche Bank 

Building. However, only two of the 100 Motion Cases fit the Zablocki criteria (but should not 

be transferred for other reasons explained below): Manuel Caguana (#14)5 and Ancil Watson 

(#98). (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B). The other 98 cases are factually distinguishable in ways that 

5

 For the purposes of this opposition, all references to plaintiff by number refer to the numbering provided by Tully 

in the list of cases. The same numbering is used in the summary chart attached as Exhibit B to the Crowley 

Certification. 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 9 of 15
- 9-

make Tully’s analogy to Zablocki inapplicable, making transfer to the 21 MC 100 docket 

inappropriate. (Id.).

A. Ninety-Eight Plaintiffs Did Not Work For Tully

Of the 100 Motion Cases, only two of the plaintiffs, Mr. Caguana (#14) and Mr. Watson 

(#98), allege that they performed any work for either Tully or any of the Tully subcontractors 

identified in Exhibit A to the Certification of Joseph E. Hopkins, dated August 2, 2007, 

submitted in support of Tully’s Motion (“Hopkins Cert.”).6 (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at 

column D). The other 98 plaintiffs allege work for a variety of other non-Tully employers 

including: LVI Environmental Services, Inc., ETS Contracting, Comprehensive Environmental, 

PAL Environmental Safety, Kiss Construction, Inc., Pinnacle Environmental Corp., Trade Winds 

Environmental Restoration, Branch, Trio Asbestos, CES, Galt John Corp., Asbestos Lead and 

Hazardous Materials Laborers, Safeway Construction, Inc., Safeway Environmental Corp., Fire 

Department of New York, Local 78, LBI-ABAS CES, PAR Environmental Corp., Nastasi 

Eurotech, Volunteer, Site Safety, LLC, and Maxon’s Restoration, Inc. (Id.). Since none of these 

98 plaintiffs allege work for Tully, Tully’s arguments in support of the transfer do not apply and 

the motion should be denied with respect to plaintiffs #1 to 13, 15 to 97, 99, and100.

B. No Plaintiffs Fit Within Tully’s Defined Scope of Work as City Contractor

Tully’s central argument is that all of the claims against Tully in the Motion Cases could 

only relate to its work as a City contractor, which would result in all of its cases being properly 

designated in 21 MC 100. Exhibit A to the Hopkins Certification defines the work done by Tully 

6

 Prior to Tully’s filing of this motion, counsel for the Deutsche Bank Defendants asked Tully’s counsel for a list of 

Tully’s subcontractors to evaluate Tully’s transfer request. However, as of the date of this opposition, Tully had not 

provided this information. The Deutsche Bank Defendants have therefore relied upon Tully’s “Detailed 

Chronological Declarations,” attached as Exhibit A to the Hopkins Certification, as a means to identify Tully’s 

contractors and the work performed by Tully at and around the “World Trade Center Site.”

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 10 of 15
- 10-

and its subcontractors in two phases: “Phase I,” which included 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC 

from September 11, 2001 to January 7, 2002, and “Phase II,” which included work at the entire 

WTC Site (as defined in CMO 3) from January 8, 2002 to July 1, 2002 with respect to utility 

restoration. (Phases I and II are referred to collectively as the “City Work”).7 In order for 

Tully’s argument to prevail, the plaintiffs in the Motion Cases would have to allege that all of 

their work fell solely within the definition of the City Work.8 However, Tully’s arguments fail in 

this regard because none of the plaintiffs in the Motion Cases allege work history solely within 

the scope of the City Work. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B).

Only three of the 100 plaintiffs in the Motion Cases, Gladys Agueldo (#3), Norbeto 

Gallardo (#34), and Ines Leon (#54), allege a work history that falls entirely within Phase II of 

the City Work. (Id.). However, Ms. Agudelo (#3) alleges that she worked for Comprehensive 

Environmental at the Deutsche Bank Building and Ms. Leon (#54) alleges that she worked for 

PAR Environmental Corp. and Pinnacle Environmental Corp. at the Deutsche Bank Building. 

(Id.). None of these are Tully subcontractors identified in the Hopkins Certification. Further, 

while Ms. Agueldo’s (#3) and Ms. Leon’s (#54) work histories include work within the 

definition of the City Work, their complaints also allege work in buildings other than those 

identified by Tully: 1 Federal Plaza, 100 Church Street, 70 Pine Street, 75 Park Place, High 

School of Economics and Finance, 90 Trinity Place, the Post Office, and P.S. 234 Independence 

School. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, column G). The third plaintiff, Mr. Gallardo (#34), does not 

list other work sites. (Id.). His claim would appear to fit within the definition of City Work, but 

7

 We do not adopt or ratify Tully’s definition of its scope of work, but use the definition Tully provided solely for 

the purpose of responding to this motion. 

8

 The 21 MC 103 docket is designated for plaintiffs alleging work both within the defined WTC site and at other 

locations. 

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 11 of 15
- 11-

his complaint alleges that he worked for Pinnacle Environmental Corp., not Tully or a Tully 

subcontractor. (Id., at column E). Accordingly, none of these three cases should be transferred

to 21 MC 100. 

The other 97 plaintiffs have alleged work histories that either predate Tully’s definition 

of City Work, post-date it by as much as four years, or both. Even the two plaintiffs alleging 

work performed for Tully and its subcontractor EROC, Mr. Caguana (#14) and Mr. Watson 

(#98), allege work at the Deutsche Bank Building outside of the time frame presented by Tully 

for its City Work. Therefore, Tully’s motion to transfer should be denied with respect to all 100 

of the Motion Cases.

C. Over 75% of the Plaintiffs Identify Themselves as “Cleaners” or “Handlers”

Lastly, the plaintiffs in the Motion Cases do not identify jobs that appear to be directed 

by the City of New York under the auspices of the DDC. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. B, at column 

F). The complaints in the Motion Cases allege a variety of work, including: asbestos handler, 

handler, cleaner, office cleaner, supervisor, firefighter,9 volunteer, and safety manager. (Id.). In 

fact, over three quarters of these plaintiffs allege work as asbestos cleaners or handlers, a jobs 

which is readily distinguishable from the nature of the work that was performed by the other 

plaintiffs in 21 MC 100. Therefore, Tully’s motion should be denied.

9

 It is unclear at this time whether plaintiff Samuel T. Giamo (#43), who alleged that he was a “Firefighter”, should 

be designated in the 21 MC 100 docket. However, the arguments advanced by Tully do not apply to him since he is 

not an employee of Tully or its subcontractors.

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 12 of 15
- 12-

III. TULLY’S APPARENT PREFERENCE TO HAVE 

ALL OF ITS CASES IN ONE DOCKET SHOULD 

NOT PREVAIL OVER THE RIGHTS OF OTHER 

PARTIES.

Tully’s motion impacts cases involving many other work locations (and defendants) 

which fall outside of the CMO 3 “World Trade Center Site” definition. (See Crowley Cert., Ex. 

B, at column G). Although Tully argues that the cases it seeks to transfer are substantially 

similar to those residing in the 21 MC 100 docket, it offers nothing to distinguish these cases 

from those residing in the 21 MC 102 docket (other than the fact that they have named Tully as a 

defendant). Whatever reasons Tully may have for wanting the Motion Cases transferred to 21 

MC 100, its arguments are not driven by the substantive allegations of the cases at issue. Tully’s 

motion should be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Deutsche Bank Defendants respectfully request that this 

Court deny Tully’s motion to transfer in all respects.

Respectfully submitted,

/s Benjamin E. Haglund

Benjamin E. Haglund, Esq.

DAY PITNEY LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and 

DB Private Clients Corporation

Dated: August 16, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 13 of 15
21 MC 102

In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

Plaintiff Case Number

Byron Acosta 07cv1552

Luis Adriano 07cv4445

Gladys Agudelo 07cv4446

Enrique Ali 07cv1554

Raul Allivar 05cv9821

Maria E. Alvarez and Carlos Chavarriage 05cv10135

Jose Alvarracin 07cv1556

Ivan Ascencio 07cv1460

Marcelo Atiencia 07cv1562

Peter B Bailon 07cv5336

Jose Barahona and Domenica Barahona 07cv5550

Hector Betancourt 07cv4453

Leopoldo Burgos 07cv1473

Manuel Caguana and Antonia Caguana 06cv11968

Ivan Calero and Reyna Calero 07cv1575

Wilson Calle 07cv1578

Rey R. Campoverde 07cv5280

Rodrigo Campozano 07cv4459

Edison Cardenas 07cv1580

Silvia Castillo and Segundo Castillo 05cv1718

Nancy Chuva 07cv1589

Yolanda Cintron 06cv5631

Jorge E Cortez 07cv5394

Lidia Cortijo 07cv317

Nancy Criollo and Lawrence Zenteino 07cv4462

Clara Dota 07cv1602

Jesse Drake and Susan Drake 07cv5353

Stanislaw Drozdz and Monika Drozdz 06cv14620

Inerva Duarte 07cv1603

Elvia Dutan and Wilfredo Dutan 07cvl606

Jorge Encalada 07cvl607

Luis Franco 07cv4466

Janina Frelas 07cv1612

Norberto Gallardo 07cv5290

Viviana Garcia 07cv1617

Peter Gaspar 05cv10739

Leonard Gawin and Miroslawa Gawin 07cv1619

Samuel T. Giamo and Rosemary Giamo 06cv11676

Hitien E Giraldo 07cv5554

Rosa Gualpa 07cv4472

Armando Guzman 07cv5556

Avenia Hernando and Nidia Hernando 07cv4473

Julio Hurtado and Elda Monica Hurtado 07cv5295

Manuel Idrovo 07cv1628

Edgar Idrovo 07cv1627

Jorge Inga 07cv1629

Jozef Jablonski and Agnieszka Jablonska 07cv1630

Jonas Jaramillo and Blanca Romelo 06cv14746

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 14 of 15
- 2-

Plaintiff Case Number

Marian Karus and Barbara Karus 07cv1635

Edward Kosowski 07cv5299

Ana Lascano 05cv9333

Andrzej Lasica and Ewelina Lasica 07cv4480

Carlos Lenis and Lucia Lenis 06cv10045

Ines Leon and Luis E. Quezada 07cv4481

Cesar Leon and Agnes Dipini 07cv63

Wilmo Loja 07cv4482

Fernando Lucero 07cv5366

Rosa Medina 07cv4491

Maria E. Melendez 07cv5397

Juan Mendez and Kareen Mendez 07cv1664

Carlos Merchan and Martha Merchan 07cv1665

Eugenic Mora and Olga Mora 06cv13168

Tatiana Morales and James Fink 07cv5370

Sandra Moreno 07cv1670

Luis Naranjo and Rosa Naranjo 05cv10738

Walter Naranjo and Miriam Naranjo 07cv4496

Oscar Negrete 07cv5371

Sean O'Connell and Carole O'Connell 07cv5374

Rosa Palaguachi and Rigoberto 07cvl680

David Reynolds and Katherine Reynolds 07cv3446

Marcel Rhoden and Deirdre L. Worley 07cv5311

Maximo Riera and Fanny Riera 07cvl519

Patricio Rodas and Taina Ruiz 07cv1694

Jaime Rojas and Johanna Hernandez 07cv451I

Mieczyslaw Romaniuk 07cv5316

Victor Salazar 07cv4512

Rosa Sanchez and Hector Albarracih 06cv12488

Edilberto Sanchez 07cv5384

Emanuel Santamaria 07cv1528

Gala Sarmiento 07cv1529

Edwin Sarmiento and Nora Sarmiento 07cv4515

Teresa Serrano 05cv8937

Raul Siguencia 07cv1533

Felipe Suarez 07cv1707

Samuel Sumba and Mercedes Sumba 07cv1710

Pedro Tamayo and Gabriella Tamayo 07cv1538

Nicholas Teham 07cv5564

Julia Tenezaca 07cv1714

Cesareo Teran 07cv5389

Jeanne Thorpe 07cv1715

Carlos A. Valencia and Gloria N. Bonilla 07cv5324

Rommel Vasquez and Rosa A. Gomez 07cvl543

Kattia Vazquez and Peter Vazquez 07cvl722

Severo Vega and Lila Gonzalez 07cv4521

Segundo Villarroel and Martha L. Villarroel 07cv1546

Kleber Villarruel 06cvl3703

Kevin Walsh 06cv12608

Robert Waniurski and Ewa Waniurski 07cv4524

Ancil Watson 07cv5391

Clarence Wragg and Cecilia Wragg 06cv8125

Case 1:07-cv-05371-AKH Document 10 Filed 08/16/2007 Page 15 of 15