1 JAMES F. MURDICA (SBN 315412) [email protected] 2 SANDRA M. KO (SBN 260863) [email protected] 3 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 4 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90067 5 Telephone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. 8 (erroneously sued as JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.) 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 ELIZABETH BODLE, Case No. 3:21-CV-07742-EMC 13 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JOHNSON & JOHNSON 14 v. CONSUMER INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 ACTION UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, 16 INC. [Filed Concurrently With Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Action Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Defendant. 41(b); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof] 18

19 Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen Hearing Date: June 9, 2022 20 Hearing Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 5 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 The Motion to Dismiss Action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure of Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (“JJCI”) regularly came on for hearing 24 before this Court on June 9, 2022. Plaintiff and JJCI were represented by counsel. 25 After reviewing and considering the Motion and papers filed in support thereof, the 26 Opposition, and Reply, the arguments of counsel at the hearing, and all other matters presented to 27 the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 28 1 (1) The Court GRANTS JJCI’s Motion to Dismiss Action; 2 (2) Plaintiff failed to file a Second Amended Complaint within 60 days of the Court’s 3 Order at the February 24, 2022 hearing and in its Minute Entry Order (Dkt. 28); 4 (3) The following five factors set forth in Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

5 (9th Cir. 1999), weigh in favor of dismissal of this action, with prejudice, under 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): 7 (a) The first factor, the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this 8 litigation, strongly supports dismissal because Plaintiff has had ample 9 time to plead plausible claims against JJCI, but has not done so; 10 (b) The second factor, the Court’s need to manage its docket, also strongly 11 supports dismissal because Plaintiff’s failure to file a Second Amended 12 Complaint within the 60 days after the February 24, 2022 hearing has 13 caused this action to come to a halt, allowing Plaintiff—not this Court— 14 to control the pace of the docket; 15 (c) The third factor, the risk of prejudice to Defendant JJCI, strongly favors 16 dismissal because Plaintiff has provided no reason for her failure to timely 17 file a Second Amended Complaint; 18 (d) The fourth factor, the public policy favoring disposition of the case on its 19 merits, does not weigh against dismissal because Plaintiff has had ample 20 opportunity to plead plausible claims against JJCI, but has failed to do so, 21 either because Plaintiff cannot or because she has chosen not to further 22 amend her complaint; and 23 (e) The fifth factor, the availability of less drastic alternatives, also does not 24 weigh against dismissal because Plaintiff was well aware of the deadline 25 to file a Second Amended Complaint but did not do so, nor has Plaintiff 26 requested any lesser relief to maintain her action. 27 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 DATED: May 6, 2022 3 Hon. Edward M. Chen 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