Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00681/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00681-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DORIS MCCOVEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, L.P.

et al., Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-0681 SC

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

STAY ACTION 

AND 

GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Doris McCovey moves the Court to dismiss her action

without prejudice under Local Rule 7-11 and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(2). Defendants move the Court to stay the action

pending transfer to multidistrict proceedings. The Court GRANTS

Plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice and DENIES

Defendants' motion to stay.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against

Defendants. On July 11, 2006, Defendants filed an Answer. 

Excluding the instant motions before the Court and their

associated responses, there does not appear to have been any other

significant activity by the parties in the case.

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

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

 For the sake of clarity, the Court notes the terms "motion"

and "order to show cause" as used in Multidistrict Litigation Rule

1.5 refer to motions and orders to show cause which are before the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. They do not refer to

motions or orders to show cause, such as the instant motion, which

are before the district court in which a potentially transferred

action was filed. 

2

On July 21, 2006, a conditional transfer order was filed

which listed the instant action. See Conditional Transfer Order

(CTO-2), In Re Seroquel Products Liability, Docket No. 1769,

Schedule CTO-2 - Tag-Along Actions (July 21, 2006) ("Conditional

Transfer Order"). The Conditional Transfer Order, however, is

just that, conditional, and thus this Court retains jurisdiction

over the instant action, including any related pretrial motions,

under Rule 1.5 of the Rules for Multidistrict Litigation. See 199

F.R.D. § 425 ("The pendency of a motion, order to show cause,

conditional transfer order or conditional remand order before the

Panel concerning transfer or remand of an action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial

proceedings in the district court in which the action is pending

and does not in any way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that

court.").1

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

When ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the Court is

required to "consider whether the defendant will suffer some plain

legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal." Hamilton v.

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

However, as Hamilton makes clear, "[p]lain legal prejudice does

not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

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

lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical advantage." 

Id. Rather, it is created when, for example, "extensive

discovery" and "intensive preparation for trial" have already been

conducted by the defendant, or when the claims to be dismissed are

inextricably linked to those which would remain. Kern Oil

Refining Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d 1380, 1390 (9th Cir.

1986). And even then, a significant showing of such factors must

be made. Id.

In support of their argument that they would suffer plain

legal prejudice if Plaintiff's motion is granted, Defendants argue

they would be prejudiced by the "loss of a federal forum," and

that this prejudice would be "compounded by plaintiff[']s . . .

'bad faith' forum-shopping tactics," of which Defendants see this

motion as an example. Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

and Astrazeneca LP's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for

Administrative Relief at 3-4 ("Defs' Opp."). 

Defendants spend most of their argument on this last point,

which is odd given this Court's rejection of similar arguments in

the context of related litigation. As the Court stated in those

cases, plain legal prejudice is not shown by demonstrating "the

prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some

tactical advantage through the use of a procedural device." 

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145. Defendants' arguments about "bad

faith" and "abuse of the judicial process" and "forum-shopping"

are all in this vein. Defs' Opp. at 3-4.

In support of their argument that they would experience plain

legal prejudice in the form of the loss of a federal forum,

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

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

Defendants cite dicta from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case

and a distinguishable case from the Eastern District of

California, and give no explanation why they would suffer from

such a result or why this would constitute a detriment to their

cause. See Defs' Opp. at 3. 

The entire passage in Westland Water Dist. v. United States

from which Defendants selectively quote reads: "For example, in

determining what will amount to legal prejudice, courts have

examined whether a dismissal without prejudice would result in the

loss of a federal forum, or the right to a jury trial, or a

statute-of-limitations defense." 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)

(emphasis added). Especially in light of the holding of Hamilton

discussed above, such dicta is not sufficient in-and-of-itself to

establish the per se rule for which Defendants appear to argue. 

The other case Defendants cite from our sister district in

the East, Roybal v. Equifax et al., C-05-1207-MCE-KLM, 2006 WL

988537 (E.D. CA., April 14, 2006), does little to further their

cause. In Roybal, it was not simply the defendants' "loss of a

federal forum" which led the court to find that the defendants

would suffer plain legal prejudice if the court granted the

plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal, but rather the fact

that the "case [was] well underway" by the time the plaintiff made

the motion. Id. at *2; see also Kern Oil Refining Co., 792 F.2d

at 1390 (describing factors related to status of case which

indicate that a defendant would suffer plain legal prejudice if a

motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice was granted). 

Here, in contrast, the case is barely underway: besides the

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

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

instant motions, there has been almost no action by the parties

beyond the filing of a Complaint and Answer. 

Finally, Defendants did not explain to the Court why they

would be denied a federal forum if the Court granted Plaintiff's

motion or how their cause would suffer as a result. See Defs'

Opp. at 3. Defendants appear to request the Court simply accept

both assertions, including their negative implications regarding

the Court's sister courts in state systems. The Court declines

the invitation.

Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of her action

without prejudice is, therefore, granted.

III. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY

Plaintiff accurately characterizes Defendants' motion for a

stay "as an 'end run' around plaintiff[']s pending motion[] for

voluntary dismissal without prejudice." Plaintiffs' [sic]

Opposition to Motion to Stay Action at 1 ("Pl.'s Opp."). Both 

parties agree that the Court should consider the following factors

in determining whether to grant the stay: "(1) potential

prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship or inequity to the

moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial

resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation

if the cases are in fact consolidated." Rivers v. Walt Disney Co.

980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. CA. 1997); see Pl.'s Opp. at 1-2;

Defendants' Motion for Administrative Relief to Stay Action

Pending Transfer to Multidistrict Proceedings at 3 ("Defs' Mot."). 

Oddly, Defendants do not discuss the second element in terms

of the hardship or inequity which they would experience absent a

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

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 6

stay, but rather the "prejudice" they would suffer, "[i]f

individual district courts," including this Court, "allowed cases

to proceed." See Defs' Mot. at 4 (emphasis added). Setting aside

that prejudice is not what Defendants needed to show, see Rivers,

980 F. Supp. at 1360, this argument fails for the perfectly

obvious reason that the only thing that would be stayed if the

Court granted Defendants' motion would be the Plaintiff's motion

which seeks to stop the case from proceeding. 

Defendants further claim that granting the stay would prevent

both parties from being "forced to engage in needless motion

practice," and would "promote judicial economy." Id. at 3-4. The

Court finds these arguments not only unavailing, but ironic, in

light of the duplicative nature of the instant motions before the

Court when viewed in relation to one another and in the context of

this Courts' past orders in related cases.

Finally, Plaintiff convincingly argues that she would be

prejudiced if she were forced into a court on the other side of

the country solely for the purpose of litigating her motion to

dismiss her action against Defendants. The Court has difficulty

imagining a greater waste of not only judicial resources, but also

party resources and even natural resources used to fly the

parties, their representatives, and their materials across the

country for this purpose. 

Defendants' motion for a stay is, therefore, denied. 

/

/

/

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

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 7

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss

without prejudice is GRANTED, and Defendants' motion for a stay is

DENIED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00681-SC Document 16 Filed 08/09/06 Page 7 of 7