Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-11/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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:

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). Defendants did not file a response. Plaintiffs

originally filed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District

of Florida, and on February 1, 2010 it was transferred to In Re Zicam Cold Remedy

Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, No. 09-md-2096. Defendants

filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint on May 26, 2010 (doc. 457). 

We first note that this motion was neither filed by plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel, nor

apparently approved by Lead Counsel, as required by Case Management Order #1 (doc. 182).

Plaintiffs must file all papers through Lead Counsel, consistent with our order.

Plaintiffs seek dismissal of their claims without prejudice and rely on Rule 1.420(a),

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, plaintiffs’ motion is governed by Rule 41, Fed.

R. Civ. P. Defendants having served an answer, the action may only be dismissed by court

order, “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 831 Filed 09/08/10 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 -

Because plaintiffs’ one sentence motion offers no explanation, it is impossible for us

to determine whether dismissal would be proper, and if so, under what terms. Dismissal may

be inconsistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Rule 41, Fed. R. Civ. P., and orders of the United

States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and this court. See Order of August 26, 2010 (doc.

774). Granting dismissal without prejudice to allow plaintiffs to pursue their claims

elsewhere could be incompatible with the MDL statute, which provides that once actions

have been transferred, they “shall be conducted by a judge or judges to whom such actions

are assigned by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation.” 28 U.S.C. §1407(b).

Moreover, dismissing without prejudice at this time risks circumventing the deadlines set in

our scheduling order and jeopardizing the judicial efficiency that underlies the MDL process.

Because we cannot determine whether dismissal would be proper, and if so, on what

terms, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file a supplemental memorandum explaining 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. Plaintiffs’ memorandum must be filed

by lead counsel. We also grant leave to defendants to file a memorandum explaining their

views on the motion to dismiss. The memoranda may not exceed five pages, and must be

filed within ten days of the docketing of this order. 

DATED this 8th day of September, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 831 Filed 09/08/10 Page 2 of 2