Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02907/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02907-0/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

Plaintiffs cannot voluntarily dismiss their claims because Defendants have already

answered the complaints. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARKUS L. TUCKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTRAZENECA

PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C06-1932 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

AND OTHER CASES AGAINST

ASTRAZENECA

PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P., et al.

NO. C06-0544 TEH

NO. C06-0555 TEH

NO. C06-2284 TEH

NO. C06-2907 TEH

Through a motion for administrative relief filed in Tucker v. AstraZeneca

Pharmaceuticals, L.P. (Case No. C06-1932 TEH), Plaintiffs in the above actions seek

dismissal of their claims without prejudice.1

 Defendants opposed the motion within the time

allowed by Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief that this Court need not

but did consider. See Civ. L.R. 7-11(c) (providing that a motion for administrative relief is

“deemed submitted for immediate determination without hearing on the day after the

opposition is due,” without providing for the filing of reply papers). After carefully

considering the parties’ arguments and relevant law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and

DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons discussed below.

First, on July 6, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order

transferring two of the above cases – Massey v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. (Case

No. C06-0544 TEH) and Dortch v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. (Case No. C06-0555

Case 3:06-cv-02907-TEH Document 4 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

TEH) – to the Middle District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings

as part of Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) No. 1769, In re Seroquel Products Liability

Litigation. The Middle District of Florida docketed the transfer order on July 10, 2006, Ex.

A to Defs.’ Notice of Filing of Order Transferring Cases, thus making the transfer order

effective as of that date pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Accordingly, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against AstraZeneca in Massey and Dortch, and

Plaintiffs’ motion as to those two cases is therefore DENIED. Denial is without prejudice to

Plaintiffs’ requesting the same relief before Judge Anne C. Conway, who is presiding over

the MDL proceedings in Florida.

The remaining three cases – Tucker, Fall v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. (Case

No. C06-2284 TEH), and Clark v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. (Case No. C06-2907)

– have not yet been transferred to the MDL court, and this Court therefore retains jurisdiction

to consider Plaintiffs’ motion. When deciding whether to grant a plaintiff’s motion for

voluntary dismissal, a court must consider “whether the defendant will suffer some plain

legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Plain legal prejudice, however, does not result

simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains

some tactical advantage.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th

Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). In this case, Defendants contend only that they may face

subsequent lawsuits that may be filed in state court to avoid transfer to the MDL

proceedings, and they fail to cite any authority for the proposition that these circumstances

constitute “plain legal prejudice.” To the contrary, in a case cited with approval by the Ninth

Circuit, the Tenth Circuit explained that “[t]he possibility that plaintiffs may gain a tactical

advantage by refiling in state court is insufficient to deny a voluntary motion to dismiss

without prejudice, especially when state law is involved,” as it is in this case. Am. Nat’l

Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. Bic Corp., 931 F.2d 1411, 1412 (10th Cir. 1991) (cited with

approval in Wetlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96-97 (9th Cir. 1996)); but

cf. Kern Oil & Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d 1380, 1389-90 (9th Cir. 1986)

(upholding the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss without prejudice based on a

Case 3:06-cv-02907-TEH Document 4 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

finding that the plaintiff was forum shopping among judges in the same district). Thus,

Plaintiffs’ motion for dismissal without prejudice in Tucker, Fall, and Clark is proper, and

the Court GRANTS the motion as to those three cases.

Finally, Defendants urge the Court to place three conditions on any dismissals without

prejudice of Plaintiffs’ claims: (1) that any plaintiffs who re-file their claims must do so in

federal court; (2) that such plaintiffs may not join any parties or amend their pleadings in any

way that would defeat diversity jurisdiction; and (3) that such plaintiffs may not object to the

transfer of their claims to MDL No. 1769. However, Defendants cite no authority in support

of any of these conditions, which would essentially guarantee that any re-filed cases end up

in the MDL proceedings in Florida, and the Court does not find such restrictive conditions to

be appropriate here.

In sum, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion for dismissal

without prejudice is DENIED as to Massey (Case No. C06-0544 TEH) and Dortch (Case No.

C06-0555 TEH) but GRANTED as to Tucker (Case No. C06-1932 TEH), Fall (Case No.

C06-2284 TEH), and Clark (Case No. C06-2907 TEH). The Clerk shall close the latter three

files.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/26/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-02907-TEH Document 4 Filed 07/26/06 Page 3 of 3