Sharon Fisher v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

Background

Sharon Fisher filed the lawsuit in state court in early 2023, alleging that the defendants’ product gave her breast cancer. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Pfizer Inc., identified collectively as the “Brand Defendants,” removed the case to federal court in early 2024. A conditional transfer order was then entered in multidistrict litigation concerning Zantac-related product-liability cases, which Fisher opposed.

Fisher moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss her case without prejudice. She cited her poor health and the burdens of continuing the litigation.

The court’s analysis

Rule 41(a)(2) allows a court to dismiss an action at a plaintiff’s request by court order and on appropriate terms. The court considered whether to allow dismissal, whether it should be with or without prejudice, and whether conditions should be imposed.

The Brand Defendants argued that dismissal would prejudice them because they had incurred litigation expenses and faced the risk of future litigation in state court. The court held that litigation expenses and the possibility of future litigation do not constitute the required legal prejudice. The court also concluded that the conditional transfer order did not remove its jurisdiction over the case. It noted that the multidistrict litigation’s pretrial order instructed plaintiffs to seek dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) and appeared to apply to cases that had already been transferred.

The Brand Defendants requested dismissal with prejudice. The court found that Fisher had not delayed the case, the defendants had not filed dispositive motions, and Fisher explained that her health was the reason for seeking dismissal. The court therefore found dismissal without prejudice proper.

The defendants alternatively asked the court to require Fisher to refile only in federal court. The court rejected that request, explaining that the defendants would not be legally prejudiced by litigating the case in state court. Although the case might properly belong in the multidistrict litigation, that determination had not been made and was not for this court to decide.

Disposition

The court granted Fisher’s motion. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion did not decide whether the defendants’ product caused Fisher’s breast cancer or otherwise resolve the underlying product-liability allegations.