Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In Re Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation 

_________________________________

This document relates to:

Sharon Davis, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc. et al.

CV-10-0164-PHX-FJM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiffs Sharon Davis, et al.’s “Motion for Voluntary

Dismissal Without Prejudice” (doc. 677), as well as plaintiffs’ supplemental memorandum

(doc. 880), and defendants’ responsive memorandum (doc. 896). These memoranda were

filed pursuant to our order of September 8, 2010, directing plaintiffs to explain what they

intend to do with their claims, and how dismissal without prejudice would be consistent with

the MDL process and the orders of this court, and also granting defendants leave to file a

memorandum stating their position on the motion to dismiss (doc. 831). 

Because defendants have served an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint (doc. 457), the

action may only be dismissed by court order, “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). In addition to our previously expressed concerns about the impact of

dismissal on the MDL process, we also must “determine whether the defendant will suffer

some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 914 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). Legal prejudice is “prejudice to some legal interest,

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Id. The expenses incurred in defending a lawsuit

do not constitute legal prejudice. Id.

Plaintiffs explain that while they believed their claims were valid when they filed

them, they have since determined that additional information would be necessary to justify

proceeding. Plaintiffs state that they would agree to a dismissal that required: (1) any further

action on their claims be filed in the United State District Court for the District of Arizona;

and (2) compliance with the MDL’s scheduling orders. Plaintiffs assert that dismissal would

not waste judicial time and effort, whereas requiring plaintiffs to proceed now would.

Plaintiffs further claim that defendants will not be prejudiced, as evidenced by their initial

decision not to respond to plaintiffs’ motion. 

Defendants now disagree, arguing they would be prejudiced because of the efforts

they have already made. Defendants have answered the complaint, and attempted to obtain

discovery against the twenty-five plaintiffs in this action. They note that ten of these

plaintiffs have not timely submitted a Fact Sheet, as required by Case Management Order #2

(doc. 398), and fourteen have filed incomplete fact sheets. Additionally, none of the twentyfive plaintiffs timely submitted responses to defendants’ special interrogatories. 

While prejudice does not result just because defendants will be inconvenienced and

incur additional expenses, see Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001), given

the unique coordination issues present in an MDL, we conclude that plaintiffs have not

alleviated our concerns about granting dismissal without prejudice. First, we note that

plaintiffs claim they lack information necessary to proceed with their claims, but give no

indication of what kind of information they do not have, or how they might obtain it at a later

date. Second, their willingness to limit any subsequent litigation of their claims to this

district, and in compliance with our case management orders, could sufficiently address the

MDL statute’s requirement that transferred actions “be conducted by a judge or judges to

whom such actions are assigned by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.” 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 914 Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

§1407(b). But this would only be true if plaintiffs filed their next complaint well in advance

of the conclusion of the MDL. Plaintiffs have offered no assurances that they would do so.

Third, and most importantly, in establishing this MDL, the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation sought not only to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent

pretrial rulings, but also “to conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the

judiciary.” Transfer Order, 2 (doc. 1). Granting dismissal without prejudice is incompatible

with that objective. Our Rule 16 and case management orders were crafted to fulfill the

objective of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to “promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.”

Defendants have already expended significant resources to comply with our orders and

advance the progress of these claims towards final resolution. Allowing plaintiffs the

opportunity to start over again would force defendants to answer another complaint, and to

propound the same discovery to which plaintiffs have already neglected to respond, and give

plaintiffs another chance to comply with the already ignored deadlines. 

Finally, plaintiffs’ motion raises the possibility that other plaintiffs would seek similar

leave. This MDL is composed of nearly 200 actions. Piecemeal withdrawals would deprive

the MDL of some of its supposed benefits.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal

without prejudice (doc. 677). 

DATED this 24th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 914 Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 3