Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00662/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00662-1/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

WENDELL COLLUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.

et al., Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-0662 SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

STAY ACTION 

AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO DISMISS

ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Wendell Collum moves the Court to dismiss his

action without prejudice under Local Rule 7-11 and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Defendants move the Court to stay the

action pending transfer to multidistrict proceedings. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without

prejudice and DENIES Defendants' motion to stay.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against

Defendants. See Complaint for Negligence, Fraud, Failure to Warn,

Strict Product Liability and Breach of Warranty. On June 19,

2006, Defendants filed their Answer. See Answer and Affirmative

and/or Separate Defenses of Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and

Case 3:06-cv-00662-SC Document 22 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Astrazeneca L.P. To Plaintiff's Complaint. Excluding the instant

motions before the Court and their associated responses, there

does not appear to have been any other significant activity by the

parties in the case.

On August 2, 2006, a conditional transfer order was filed

which listed the instant action. See Conditional Transfer Order

(CTO-61, CTO-3), MDL-1569 - In Re Zyprexa Products Liability

Litigation, MDL-1769 - In Re Seroquel Products Liability, Docket

Nos. 1596 and 1769, Schedules CTO-61 and CTO-3 (Aug. 2, 2006)

("Conditional Transfer Order"). The Conditional Transfer Order,

however, is just that, conditional, and thus this Court retains

jurisdiction over the instant action, including any related

pretrial motions, 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 or conditional

remand 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 way limit the pretrial

jurisdiction of that court.").1

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

When ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the Court is

Case 3:06-cv-00662-SC Document 22 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 5
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

required 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' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for voluntary

dismissal without prejudice makes no attempt at such a showing,

but rather only describes the case's status before the MDL Panel. 

See Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Astrazeneca LP's

Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief. 

Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of his action without

prejudice is, therefore, GRANTED.

III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY

In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court considers

the following factors: "(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving

party; (2) hardship or inequity to the moving party if the action

is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved

by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact

Case 3:06-cv-00662-SC Document 22 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

consolidated." Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360

(C.D. CA. 1997). 

Defendants do not discuss the second element in terms of the

hardship or inequity which they would experience absent a stay,

but rather the "prejudice" they would suffer, "[i]f individual

district courts," including this Court, "allowed cases to

proceed." See Defs' Mot. at 4 (emphasis added). Setting aside

that prejudice is not what Defendants needed to show, see Rivers,

980 F. Supp. at 1360, this argument fails for the obvious reason

that the only thing that would be stayed if the Court granted

Defendants' motion would be the Plaintiff's motion which seeks to

stop the case from proceeding. 

Defendants further claim that granting the stay would

"promote judicial economy." Id. at 3. The Court finds this

argument not only unavailing, but ironic, in light of the

duplicative nature of the instant motions before the Court when

viewed in relation to one another and in the context of this

Courts' past orders in related cases.

Finally, Plaintiff convincingly argues that he would be

prejudiced if he were forced into a court on the other side of the

country solely for the purpose of litigating his motion to dismiss

his action against Defendants. See Pl.'s Opp. at 2-3. The Court

has difficulty imagining a greater waste of not only judicial

resources, but also party resources and even natural resources

used to fly the parties, their representatives, and their

materials across the country for this purpose. 

Defendants' motion for a stay is, therefore, DENIED. 

Case 3:06-cv-00662-SC Document 22 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss

without prejudice is GRANTED, and Defendants' motion for a stay is

DENIED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00662-SC Document 22 Filed 08/29/06 Page 5 of 5