Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08040/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08040-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen Dorsey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wright Medical Technology, Inc., a

Delaware corporation; Wright Medical

Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8040-PCT-MHM

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 29),

filed shortly after the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case without prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (Doc. 26). In essence, Defendants argue

that the Court should have dismissed the case with prejudice, and that the Court should not

have entered Judgment before allowing Defendants the chance to respond to Plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss. (Doc. 29) However, Defendants’ motion does not set forth any analysis

that would have altered the Court’s decision to dismiss the case without prejudice. 

As Defendants note, a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is subject to the

Court’s sound discretion. (Doc. 29 at 3, citing Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla

International B.V., 889 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that “[a] motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the district court's sound discretion and the

court's order will not be disturbed unless the court has abused its discretion.”). Defendants

claim that Plaintiffs filed the motion to dismiss without prejudice in order to prevent

Case 3:09-cv-08040-MHM Document 30 Filed 08/03/10 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

- 2 -

Defendants from filing a Motion for Sanctions and/or Motion for Summary Judgment based

on Plaintiff’s failure to identify expert opinion testimony to support the claims Plaintiff had

identified in the Complaint. (Doc. 29 at 3). Defendants further state that they “believe that

Plaintiff’s request to dismiss his action, without prejudice, is nothing more than an attempt

to put his past actions behind him in order to allow for the refiling of his action without

sanctions.” (Doc. 29 at 2). However, Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to concede that most,

if not all, of his claims would now be barred by the Statute of Limitations if he were to refile

his claims. (Doc. 1). Moreover, if Plaintiff attempts to refile his claims, Defendants are in

no way barred from referencing this cases’s history to the new Judge should Plaintiff fail to

comply with the expert disclosure deadline in the hypothetical new case. A dismissal with

prejudice would prevent Plaintiff from ever obtaining a decision on the merits, undermining

the jurisprudential goal of deciding cases on their merits rather than on legal technicalities

whenever possible. See Bailey v. U.S., 642 F.2d 344, 347 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Judges naturally

prefer that a person claiming to be injured shall have a chance to have his claim heard and

decided on its merits.”). Given that Defendants have not presented a sufficient basis to alter

or amend the Court’s prior Order, Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc.

29) is hereby denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

(Doc. 29).

DATED this 2nd day of August, 2010.

Case 3:09-cv-08040-MHM Document 30 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2