Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00512/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00512-0/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 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Frank A. Perrino, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Atrium Medical Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-16-00512-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendant Atrium Medical Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), 

to which Plaintiffs Frank A. and Yeseria Perrino filed a Response (Doc. 9) and Defendant 

filed a Reply (Doc. 16). Defendant asks the Court to dismiss this action because, in a 

prior action in this District, Case No. CV-15-00520-PHX-SPL, U.S. District Judge Logan 

dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and, in any event, Plaintiffs’ claims are time 

barred. (Doc. 6.) 

 In the prior action, Plaintiffs and Defendant jointly filed a Certificate of Conferral 

stating that Defendant agreed not to file a Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs agreed to file 

an Amended Complaint to address the agreed-upon defects in their Complaint by a date 

to be set forth by the Court. (Case No. CV-15-00520-PHX-SPL, Doc. 18.) Judge Logan 

ordered Plaintiffs to file the Amended Complaint by August 4, 2015, or “show cause in 

writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute within such 

time.” (Case No. CV-15-00520-PHX-SPL, Doc. 19.) When Plaintiffs filed nothing by the 

deadline, Judge Logan found they failed to demonstrate why the case should not be 

Case 2:16-cv-00512-JJT Document 18 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and ordered “that this action is dismissed.” (Case No. 

CV-15-00520-PHX-SPL, Doc. 23.) 

 By the plain language of the filings in the prior action, Judge Logan’s dismissal 

was not based on a voluntary dismissal of the action by Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a), as they now urge. Instead, Plaintiffs were under an Order of the 

Court to either file an Amended Complaint, as they had agreed, or show cause by a 

specific date why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge 

Logan’s ultimate dismissal—entered six months before Plaintiffs brought the present 

action—was under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which contemplates instances 

when a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” The 

Rule continues, “[u]nless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 

subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule . . . operates as an adjudication on 

the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because Judge Logan’s dismissal Order did not state 

that the dismissal was without prejudice, it was an adjudication on the merits, and 

Plaintiffs may not now bring the same action again. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Atrium Medical 

Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00512-JJT Document 18 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2