Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In Re: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing, )

Sales Practices and Products Liability ) No. 09-md-2096 PHX-FJM

Litigation, ) 

 ) MDL No. 2096

_______________________________ )

 )

This Document Relates to: )

 )

All Economic Injury Actions )

_______________________________ )

The court has before it a "Stipulation and Joint Request for Dismissal Without

Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)" (doc. 710). The parties assert that they

have settled the Economic Injury Actions pursuant to an unfiled Memorandum. They say

that the settlement includes claims at issue in Hohman v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., CV 09-

3693, pending in the Northern District of Illinois. They wish to present their "global"

settlement to the court in Illinois because, they say, the impending deadlines in this MDL

case make it "infeasible and uneconomical to pursue approval of the settlement in the MDL."

Stipulation at 2. They ask us to dismiss all the Economic Injury Actions in this MDL without

prejudice under Rules 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.

We are of the view that this proposal is inconsistent with the relevant statute, rule, and

orders of the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and this court. Here is why.

Under 28 U.S.C. §1407, 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." §1407(b). Unless terminated in the transferee district (by, for example, summary

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 774 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

judgment or dismissal with prejudice), "(e)ach action so transferred shall be remanded by the

panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was

transferred". §1407(a). 

Here, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a Transfer Order transferring

actions here. In addition, we transferred actions originally filed in this district to the MDL.

The Panel expressly sustained the objection to the inclusion of the Hohman action in the

MDL(because it was insufficiently similar) and expressly rejected the alternative proposal

to centralize all actions in the Northern District of Illinois. Transfer Order of Oct. 9, 2009

at 1-2 (doc. 1). Yet, the Request to Dismiss Without Prejudice would accomplish precisely

that which the Panel rejected. We cannot allow this circumvention. Nor does it make sense.

If the claims in the Hohman action were insufficiently similar to warrant transfer, how could

that action be a platform to support class treatment of the claims here under Rule 23, Fed. R.

Civ. P.?

 Even if these obvious obstacles could be overcome, what would happen if the

settlement was not consummated, or not approved? Where would the claims be filed? They

could not be filed and processed here, because by that time all of the firm deadlines in our

Rule 16 Order would have passed. We would not tolerate amendment to the schedule. Our

Rule 16 Scheduling Order (doc. 183) requires this MDL to be completed no later than July

1, 2011. The Order is not aspirational. It was carefully crafted to be reasonable in this case

and to fulfill the objective of 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to "promote the just and efficient conduct of

such actions." We categorically reject the parties' contention that the deadlines here make

it "infeasible and uneconomical to pursue approval of the settlement in the MDL."

Stipulation at 2.

The ability of the parties to stipulate to voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),

Fed. R. Civ. P. is subject to "any applicable federal statute". 28 U.S.C. 1407 is such a statute.

Were it otherwise, the entire MDL process could be jeopardized by the unilateral action of

the parties.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 774 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly, it is ORDERED REJECTING the Stipulation and DENYING the

Joint Request for Dismissal Without Prejudice (doc. 710).

DATED this 26th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 774 Filed 08/26/10 Page 3 of 3