Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01326/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01326-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSE ASHBURN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01326 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

AND FINDING AS 

MOOT DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY

Plaintiff filed her complaint on February 23, 2006. Defendants answered the complaint

on July 7, 2006. This action was reassigned to the undersigned judge from Magistrate Judge

Chen on August 16, 2006, after plaintiff declined consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge.

On July 12, prior to reassignment, plaintiff had requested voluntary dismissal pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). On August 1, also prior to reassignment but after

plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal, defendants moved to stay this action pending a

transfer determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

“A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2)

unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v.

Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). This district court has recently noted some of the

considerations that fail to constitute plain legal prejudice:

Case 3:06-cv-01326-WHA Document 16 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

“[U]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved or because

the threat of future litigation . . . causes uncertainty does not result

in plain legal prejudice. Also, plain legal prejudice does not

result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by

having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain

a tactical advantage by that dismissal.” Furthermore, “the

expense incurred in defending against a lawsuit does not amount

to legal prejudice.”

Williams v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Westlands

Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)).

It seems the only possible “prejudice” that could come to defendants from permitting

voluntary dismissal is the possibility of plaintiff re-filing this action again in this forum. This

might result in the small added expense of having to notice the action again for transfer to the

MDL Panel. It might also provide a very slight tactical advantage to plaintiff to stay in this

forum, if the MDL Panel ultimately determines no further transfers are to be accepted. These

potential problems, however, fail to constitute plain legal prejudice under the authority cited

above.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s request was filed prior to defendants’ motion to stay this action. 

The question of dismissal should, therefore, be decided in advance of the stay motion. 

Defendants’ motion is moot and is, therefore, DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for voluntary

dismissal is GRANTED. Given the absence of undue hardship to defendants, the dismissal is

without prejudice. Williams, 227 F.R.D. at 539–40. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01326-WHA Document 16 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2