Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01289/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01289-1/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

KATHERINE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS,

L.P., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-1289 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF; DENYING AS MOOT

ASTRAZENECA’S MOTION TO STAY;

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief, filed August 4, 2006, by

which plaintiff requests the Court dismiss the above-titled action without prejudice. 

Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., and AstraZeneca, L.P. (collectively,

“AstraZeneca”) have filed opposition. Defendant Eli Lilly & Company (“Eli Lilly”) has 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-01289-MMC Document 21 Filed 08/10/06 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, Eli Lilly has not responded to the motion and, consequently, has 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

AstraZeneca alternatively argues that any dismissal without prejudice should be

conditioned on plaintiff’s refiling his complaint in a federal district court with proper venue,

not adding any defendant that would destroy diversity, and not objecting to transfer to the

MDL proceeding in the Middle District of Florida. In short, the conditions would require any

refiled action to be litigated in the Middle District of Florida. AstraZeneca cites no authority

in support of the imposition of such conditions and, under the circumstances pertaining

herein, the Court finds such conditions are not warranted

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and the above-titled action is 

DISMISSED without prejudice. AstraZeneca’s motion to stay is hereby DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01289-MMC Document 21 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 2