Lois Lama-Wolobah, as Personal Representative of the Estate of H.W. v. Paqui, LLC, Amplify Snack Brands, Inc., The Hershey Company, Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. d/b/a Walgreen #03151, Walgreens of Massachusetts, LLC, James Connolly, and Jane Doe

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an omnibus order addressing multiple motions in a wrongful-death and product-liability action arising from the Paqui One Chip Challenge. The court denied reconsideration, separate final judgment, certification of a question of law, and interlocutory appeal; denied a motion to strike the amended complaint; deemed certain motions moot; and granted a motion to strike a sur-reply containing materials outside the pleadings.

Holdings

1. A motion to reconsider a nonfinal order may be granted only upon newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or manifest error of law or clear injustice; plaintiff's motion failed to establish any of those circumstances.
2. Separate final judgment was improper because the dismissed and pending negligence claims were factually intertwined and plaintiff failed to show undue hardship from waiting for resolution of the remaining claims.
3. Certification was denied because plaintiff supplied no distinct legal question, failed to show that the proposed question would be determinative of the case, and sought certification only after losing the relevant motion.
4. Interlocutory appeal was denied because plaintiff failed to establish a controlling question of law, substantial ground for difference of opinion, and material advancement of the litigation, and the circumstances were not exceptional.
5. The amended complaint would not be stricken merely because it referred to previously dismissed parties, but those references did not vacate the prior dismissal and the court would not analyze claims against those parties.
6. Materials attached to plaintiff's sur-reply, including FDA-related materials, news sources, and medical journal articles, were improper at the motion-to-dismiss stage because they were not attached to or expressly incorporated into the amended complaint and did not fall within a recognized exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should reconsider its prior order denying remand and dismissing James Connolly and Jane Doe as fraudulently joined defendants.
2. Whether the court should enter a separate final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the dismissed defendants.
3. Whether the court should certify a question concerning Connolly's duty of care to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
4. Whether the court should certify the prior ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
5. Whether portions of the amended complaint referring to previously dismissed defendants should be stricken.
6. Whether defendants' motion for joinder was moot after denial of the motion to strike the amended complaint.
7. Whether motions to dismiss directed to the superseded original complaint were moot.
8. Whether plaintiff's sur-reply and attached materials outside the pleadings should be stricken at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Disposition

other