CR Bard v. Medical Components

Filing 99

MEMORANDUM DECISION overruling 95 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision ; denying 96 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 02/15/2013. (asp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
C.R. BARD, INC.,
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
DECISION

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:12-cv-32-RJS-EJF
MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC.,
Honorable Robert J. Shelby
Defendant.

On December 17, 2012, the Honorable Evelyn Furse issued an Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Partial Stay. (Dkt. No. 79.) Magistrate Judge Furse
stayed the case in its entirety to await reexamination of relevant patents-in-suit by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On December 31, 2012, Defendant Medical
Component, Inc. (Medcomp) objected to Judge Furse’s order. On that same day, Medcomp also
filed a Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice.
The court will not disturb Judge Furse’s ruling. Magistrate judges have the authority to
issue orders on non-dispositive pretrial motions, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and the district court will only
disturb those orders if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. The court has carefully
reviewed the relevant motions and memoranda and finds that nothing in Judge Furse’s order was
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court agrees with Judge Furse’s conclusion that the
Bard patents-in-suit and the Medcomp patent-in-suit are related and that “the USPTO’s actions
concerning the Bard patents-in-suit may narrow issues relevant to Medcomp’s counterclaim.”
(Dkt. No. 79.)

1

Under Rule 41(a)(2), voluntary dismissal of a claim is within the sound discretion of the
court. Medcomp chose to file a counterclaim in this forum and now, based on Judge Furse’s
order to stay the case, it seeks to pursue its claim elsewhere. But Medcomp’s desire to file the
claim in another forum is not a compelling reason to grant the motion. See Sanders v. Sw. Bell
Tel., L.P., 2009 WL 1812424, at *3–4 (N.D. Okla. June 23, 2009) (denying motion for voluntary
dismissal because plaintiff was seeking to file claim in a more favorable forum). Medcomp is
seeking an end run around the stay and the court is not inclined to encourage such forum
shopping. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Tolliver, 636 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting the
court’s preference for a legal rule that “discourage[d] forum shopping”). The court finds that
Medcomp has not provided an adequate basis for the court to grant its Motion to Dismiss.
For the foregoing reasons, the court OVERRULES Medcomp’s Objection to Magistrate
Judge’s December 17, 2012, Order Staying Case (Dkt. No. 95) and DENIES Medcomp’s Motion
for Dismissal Without Prejudice of its Sixth Counterclaim (Dkt. No. 96).
SO ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Court Judge

2