Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01526/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01526-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLYE, TRACY L.; C-06-0679 MHP

RUSCSAK, JENNIFER R.; C-06-1305 MHP

REARDON, JAMES R.; C-06-1329 MHP

PATTON, JOSEPH D.; C-06-1526 MHP

REYNOLDS, VICKY; C-06-1529 MHP

EADES, LURAE; C-06-1555 MHP

GINYARD, VALARIE; C-06-1526 MHP

WILLIAMS, OGGIEY Y.; c-06-1855 MHP,

Plaintiffs,

 vs.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P., et al.

Defendants /

Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel

ORDER DENYING

OMNIBUS MOTION TO

DISMISS

Plaintiffs have filed a motion in the above cases to dismiss either the entire action or the

Astrazeneca defendants without prejudice. They characterize the motion as an omnibus motion for

“administrative relief” and request dismissal without prejudice. The above actions have either been

transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) or are pending transfer, notice

having been given to the Panel that they are potential tag-along actions.

There are several problems with plaintiffs’ attempts to dismiss their actions without

prejudice. First of all, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) governs since answers have been

filed in all of these cases. Answers were filed in all of these cases at least by July 10, 2006 except

Case 3:06-cv-01526-MHP Document 7 Filed 07/26/06 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 2

one that was filed on July 11, 2006. Plaintiffs filed their “omnibus motion” on July 12, 2006. They

did not notice the motion as required by Rule 41(a)(2), which by the implication of its wording

indicates that a motion must be made. If plaintiffs were seeking to dismiss with prejudice, the court

might look at the effort differently. However, given all of the circumstances surrounding this effort,

it appears to be nothing more than forum shopping. 

Secondly, two of these cases, C-06-0679MHP and C-06-1555MHP, have been transferred by

the MDL Panel by order dated July 6, 2006. As to those cases, they are now under the jurisdiction

of the transferee court. This court no longer has jurisdiction.

Thirdly, the remaining cases are the subject of a tag-along notice submitted to the MDL

Panel by defendant on July 11, 2006. Having reviewed these cases and the MDL Panel’s order with

respect to the originally consolidated and transferred actions, it is clear that the cases at bar would

also be transferred.

Finally, it is clear that this maneuvering is blatant forum shopping. The court declines to

approve this conduct or grant the motion. If plaintiffs wish to dismiss their actions, they can bring a

properly noticed motion before the transferee judge as to the cases already transferred and upon the

order of transfer in the cases awaiting transfer. If for any reason the MDL Panel does not transfer

one or more of the latter cases, plaintiffs can bring a noticed motion to dismiss before this court.

For the foregoing reasons, the “omnibus motion” to dismiss is DENIED as to all of the

above-named cases.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: July 25, 2006

 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-01526-MHP Document 7 Filed 07/26/06 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

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-01526-MHP Document 7 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3