Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01629/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01629-4/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Plaintiff also names Eli Lilly and Company as a defendant. Eli Lilly filed its

answer on July 17, 2006. It has not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary

dismissal; nor has it taken a position on the motion to stay. Although the Court has issued

orders with respect to briefing on these motions that addressed the AstraZeneca Defendants

and Plaintiff, by virtue of the e-filing system, Eli Lilly has had notice of Plaintiff’s motion. 

The Court construes its silence as a lack of opposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WIESEN

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P. et al.

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-1629 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND

DENYING AS MOOT

ASTRAZENECA DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY

The Court has before it for consideration Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Approving

Dismissal Without Prejudice, and the Motion to Stay Action Pending Transfer to Multidistrict

Proceedings filed by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. and AstraZeneca L.P. (the

“AstraZeneca Defendants”). Pursuant to a prior order of the Court setting a briefing schedule,

the motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision, and the Court finds the motions suitable for

disposition without oral argument.1 See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case. On July 10, 2006, the

AstraZeneca Defendants filed their answer. 

Case 3:06-cv-01629-JSW Document 31 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

On July 13, 2006, the AstraZeneca Defendants filed a Notice of MDL Transfer Order, in

which they advised the Court that the Judicial Panel District on Multi-District Litigation had 

established MDL Proceeding No. 1769, In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation, and had

transferred approximately 92 actions pending in this district and others to the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Florida for coordinated proceedings before the

Honorable Anne C. Conway. In that notice, the AstraZeneca Defendants advised the Court that

they had identified this case as a potential tag-along action to MDL Proceeding 1769. The

record in this case establishes that plaintiff’s current counsel advocated the creation of

coordinated MDL proceedings, albeit on behalf of different plaintiffs. (See Defendants’ Reply,

Ex. 3.) The record also establishes that Plaintiff sought to continue a case management

conference in this case on the ground that he expected that the matter would be transferred to

MDL Proceeding 1769. That request was made before the MDL issued its Transfer Order. 

(Defendants’ Opp., Exs. D, E.)

On July 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed his motion to voluntarily dismiss this action in its

entirety. On August 1, 2006, the AstraZeneca Defendants moved to stay the proceedings

pending a transfer to MDL Proceeding 1769. 

This case is not yet subject to a conditional transfer order from the MDL.

ANALYSIS

In this case, Plaintiff seeks a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a). That rule provides, in pertinent part, that when a defendant has filed

an answer, “an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon order of the

court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)-

(2). 

“[T]he decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the

sound discretion of the District Court ....” Kern Oil Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d

1380, 1390 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145

(9th Cir. 1982)). In considering a motion for voluntary dismissal, the Court must “consider

whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” 

Case 3:06-cv-01629-JSW Document 31 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145. “Legal prejudice” is defined as “prejudice to some legal interest,

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). In addition, a

court may find plain legal prejudice where significant discovery or pretrial preparations have

taken place. See Kern Oil, 792 F.2d at 1390 (upholding denial of motion for voluntary dismissal

where court concluded plaintiff was forum shopping and significant activity in case had taken

place); but see Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97 (stating that court previously has stated that expenses

incurred in litigating case did not amount to plain legal prejudice).

The Ninth Circuit also has made clear that “[p]lain 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, 679 F.2d at 145. Indeed, “[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 Westlands, 100 F.3d at 96-97).

Although Plaintiff contends that the basis for requesting a dismissal is “immaterial,”

because the Astrazeneca Defendants can articulate no plain legal prejudice, the Court is not

persuaded by this argument. In the Kern Oil case, the Ninth Circuit, in concluding that the

district court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a voluntary

dismissal of its counterclaim, found that the defendant’s asserted justification for requesting

dismissal was “baseless.” Kern Oil, 792 F.2d at 1389. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

asserted justifications for dismissal, as well as the AstraZeneca Defendants’ asserted bases for

claiming they have suffered plain legal prejudice, are material to its decision. 

With respect to the former, Plaintiff does not explain why he, personally, seeks to

voluntarily dismiss this action. Rather, he asserts generally that “[f]or a variety of reasons many

Plaintiffs have determined that it would be in their best interests to proceed differently. Some

Plaintiffs may not proceed further with an Action. Some Plaintiffs will not pursue AstraZeneca,

but will instead proceed against one or more co-defendants. Some Plaintiffs will proceed

Case 3:06-cv-01629-JSW Document 31 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

4

against AstraZeneca and/or certain other co-defendants in another forum.” (Plaintiff’s Mot. at

2.) Plaintiff also notes that claims against AstraZeneca and other defendants have been split

into two MDL proceedings, requiring “Plaintiffs” to litigate in two separate fora. (Id. at 2-3.) 

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that his counsel “has no contacts and no experience” in the Middle

District of Florida, where MDL 1769 is proceeding. (Id. at 3.) 

The AstraZeneca Defendants in turn oppose Plaintiff’s motion and contend that they

have established plain legal prejudice because Plaintiff admits to forum shopping. They also

assert, relying on Roybal v. Equifax, 2006 WL 988537 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2006), that they are

prejudiced by the “loss of a federal forum.” (Defs. Opp. at 3.) The Court is troubled both by the

fact that Plaintiff’s counsel sought to establish coordinated MDL proceedings and by the fact

that Plaintiff did not seek to dismiss this action until after the MDL assigned the coordinated

proceedings to Judge Conway. However, as noted, the mere fact that the Plaintiff may gain

some tactical advantage from the dismissal is not enough to establish plain legal prejudice. 

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145.

Further, while the remainder of Plaintiff’s proffered justifications for dismissal are set

forth in general terms and do not address why he personally wishes to dismiss, the Court does

not find them to be “baseless.” Nor is the Court inclined to punish Plaintiff for a choice that

may be driven entirely by counsel’s wishes, rather than his own. Finally, the Court rejects the

AstraZeneca Defendants’ argument that they are prejudiced by the “loss of a federal forum.” 

The Roybal case is not dispositive, because in that case the plaintiff’s claims arose under federal

law. See Roybal v. Equifax, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1181-82 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (finding plaintiff’s

state law claims completely preempted and dismissing federal claims with leave to amend). 

Here, although Plaintiff chose to file initially in federal court, he only asserts state law claims,

and, with the exception of the instant motions, there has been no significant pretrial activity in

this case. 

Accordingly, having considered all of these issues, the Court exercises its discretion to

GRANT Plaintiff’s motion. This action is HEREBY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Case 3:06-cv-01629-JSW Document 31 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

5

Having granted Plaintiff’s motion, the AstraZeneca Defendants’ motion to stay these

proceedings pending transfer is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01629-JSW Document 31 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 5