Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01441/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01441-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD B. REID,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-1441 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF; DENYING AS MOOT

ASTRAZENECA’S MOTION TO STAY

(Docket Nos. 19, 21)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief, filed August 9, 2006, by

which plaintiff seeks leave to dismiss all defendants other than Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli

Lilly”) without prejudice. Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., and

AstraZeneca, L.P. (collectively, “AstraZeneca”) have filed opposition, to which plaintiff has

replied. Defendants Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson Company (“Johnson & Johnson”), and

Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P. (“Janssen”) have not filed opposition or other

response to plaintiff’s motion. Also before the Court is AstraZeneca’s motion for

administrative relief to stay the action, pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) as to whether plaintiff’s claims against AstraZeneca

should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida for inclusion in In re Seroquel

Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1769.

A plaintiff is entitled to a dismissal without prejudice unless the defendant

demonstrates it will “suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” See

Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F. 2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 3:06-cv-01441-MMC Document 23 Filed 08/16/06 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

1

As noted, the other defendants have not responded to the motion and,

consequently, have made no showing with respect to prejudice.

2

Plaintiff’s counsel, apparently anticipating the transfer of his claims against

AstraZeneca to the Middle District of Florida, states plaintiff does not wish to proceed with

his claims therein, preferring instead to refile in a state court, in the event plaintiff decides

to refile at all. In opposition, AstraZeneca argues a refiling would defeat the purposes of

the MDL Panel’s order creating multidistrict litigation. AstraZeneca, however, cites no

authority holding such result constitutes cognizable prejudice for purposes of defeating

plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Further, plaintiff’s claims arise under state law, and “[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.” See American Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. v. BIC Corp., 931 F. 2d 1411, 1412

(10th Cir. 1991); see also Wetlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F. 3d 94, 97 (9th Cir.

1996) (citing favorably to American Nat’l Bank). Consequently, AstraZeneca has not

shown it will be prejudiced if plaintiff’s motion is granted.1

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and all claims asserted against

AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

AstraZeneca’s motion to stay is hereby DENIED as moot.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19 and 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01441-MMC Document 23 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2