
    Tammy PHILIBERT; Rudolph Philibert, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ETHICON, INC., A Subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson; et al, Defendants, Ethicon, Inc., A Subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-31003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 16, 2005.
    Timothy George Schafer, Christopher Michael McNabb, Valerie M. Briggs, Schafer & Schafer, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    James B. Irwin, Monique M. Garsaud, Irwin, Fritehie, Urquhart & Moore, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

We granted leave to appeal the district court’s denial of Philibert’s motion for voluntary dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. The district court denied the motion, concluding that dismissal would subject Ethicon to clear legal prejudice. As the district court put it, “The question is whether there is any legal prejudice with regard to moving it to Florida.” The district court explained that suit had been filed in Florida against the same defendant, as well as another defendant who was Florida based, giving rise to choice of law issues should he order the case transferred to Florida.

Subsequent to our grant of leave to appeal, the district court in Florida transferred the litigation pending there to the court below in Louisiana. We are persuaded to vacate our grant of leave to appeal in that these subsequent events have fundamentally changed the issues before the district court and on appeal.

The leave to appeal is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     