Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01314/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

1

Lawshea and McCool have the same counsel.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. McCOOL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-1314 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF; DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST

ASTRAZENECA WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

DENYING AS MOOT ASTRAZENECA’S

MOTION TO STAY

On July 12, 2006, plaintiff Donnell L. Lawshea (“Lawshea”) filed an “Motion for

Administrative Relief; Omnibus Request for Orders Approving Dismissal Without Prejudice”

in C 06-1492, Lawshea v. Astrazeneca Pharamaceuticals, L.P., et al., and included therein

a request that the Court dismiss without prejudice plaintiff Charles A. McCool’s (“McCool”)

claims against Astrazeneca.1

 Astrazeneca filed opposition, and Lawshea, on behalf of,

inter alia, McCool, filed a reply; both the opposition and reply were filed in the Lawshea

action. On August 16, 2006, the instant case was reassigned to the undersigned. Having

reviewed the parties’ respective submissions with respect to the motion for administrative

relief, to the extent such submissions pertain to the instant action, the Court rules as

follows.

A plaintiff is entitled to a dismissal without prejudice unless the defendant

demonstrates it will “suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” See

Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F. 2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff’s counsel, apparently anticipating the transfer of his claims against

Case 3:06-cv-01314-MMC Document 17 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

AstraZeneca’s motion to stay, filed August 1, 2006, is hereby DENIED as moot.

2

AstraZeneca to the Middle District of Florida for inclusion in In re Seroquel Products

Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1769, states plaintiff does not wish to proceed with his claims

therein, preferring instead to refile in a state court, in the event plaintiff decides to refile at

all. In opposition, AstraZeneca argues a refiling would defeat the purposes of the MDL

Panel’s order creating multidistrict litigation. AstraZeneca, however, cites no authority

holding such result constitutes cognizable prejudice for purposes of defeating plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss. Further, plaintiff’s claims arise under state law, and “[t]he possibility that

plaintiffs may gain a tactical advantage by refiling in state court is insufficient to deny a

voluntary motion to dismiss without prejudice, especially when state law is involved.” See

American Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. BIC Corp., 931 F. 2d 1411, 1412 (10th Cir. 1991);

see also Wetlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F. 3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing

favorably to American Nat’l Bank). Consequently, AstraZeneca has not shown it will be

prejudiced if plaintiff’s motion is granted.

AstraZeneca alternatively argues that any dismissal without prejudice should be

conditioned on plaintiff’s refiling his complaint in a federal district court with proper venue,

not adding any defendant that would destroy diversity, and not objecting to transfer to the

MDL proceeding in the Middle District of Florida. In short, the conditions would require any

refiled action to be litigated in the Middle District of Florida. AstraZeneca cites no authority

in support of the imposition of such conditions and, under the circumstances pertaining

herein, the Court finds such conditions are not warranted

Accordingly, to the extent the motion filed July 12, 2006 in the Lawshea action

applies to the instant action, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and McCool’s claims against

AstraZeneca are DISMISSED without prejudice.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01314-MMC Document 17 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2