Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00677/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00677-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY L. GREGOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.

et al., Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-0677 SC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO DISMISS ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Betty L. Gregor moves the Court to dismiss her

action without prejudice, under Local Rule 7-11 and F.C.R.P.

41(a)(2). The Court GRANTS the motion.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that, unlike certain

related actions, the Court retains jurisdiction over the instant

action, under Rule 1.5 of the Rules for Multidistrict Litigation. 

See 199 F.R.D. § 425 ("The pendency of a motion, order to show

cause, conditional transfer order before the Panel concerning

transfer or remand of an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does

not affect or suspend orders and pretrial proceedings in the

district court in which the action is pending and does not in any

Case 3:06-cv-00677-SC Document 15 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 For the sake of clarity, the Court notes the terms "motion"

and "order to show cause" as used in Multidistrict Litigation Rule

1.5 refer to motions and orders to show cause which are before the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. They do not refer to

motions or orders to show cause, such as the instant motion, which

are before the district court in which a potentially transferred

action was filed. 

2

way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court.").1

As to the merits, the Court is required, when ruling on a

motion for voluntary dismissal, to "consider whether the defendant

will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the

dismissal." Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d

143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). However, as Hamilton makes clear,

"[p]lain legal prejudice does not result simply when defendant

faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely

gains some tactical advantage." Id. Rather, it is created when,

for example, "extensive discovery" and "intensive preparation for

trial" have already been conducted by the defendant, or when the

claims to be dismissed are inextricably linked to those which

would remain. Kern Oil Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d

1380, 1390 (9th Cir. 1986). And even then, a significant showing

of such factors must be made. Id.

Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. and Astrazeneca

L.P. have made no such showing of plain legal prejudice. Rather,

they complain of Plaintiff's "bad faith tactics," of which they

see the instant motion as an example, but give no examples of how

they would suffer plain legal prejudice if the motion was granted. 

Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP and Astrazenaca LP's

Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief at 4. 

Case 3:06-cv-00677-SC Document 15 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Frustration with a plaintiff's use of a procedural device to gain

"some tactical advantage" is not grounds for denying its motion to

dismiss without prejudice. Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss

without prejudice is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00677-SC Document 15 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 3