Case Name: Michelle CARTER; Jonathan Cessna; Alicia Gentile; Sonia Herrera; Jenny Marazzi; Megan Peterson; Sven P. Vogtland; David Walls; Kristina Pearson; Eric Terrell; Elizabeth Poynter; Eric Capdeville, Plaintiffs, Respondents, Michael Feuer; Martin Hommel; Kami Raleigh; Bridget Becnel Delivorias; Karen Finney; Amani El-Jandali; Marvin Catalan, Plaintiffs, v. The DIAL CORPORATION, a/k/a, Dial Corporation, a/k/a, The Dial Corporation, Inc., Defendant, Petitioner, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-31
Citations: 869 F.3d 13
Docket Number: No. 17-8009
Parties: Michelle CARTER; Jonathan Cessna; Alicia Gentile; Sonia Herrera; Jenny Marazzi; Megan Peterson; Sven P. Vogtland; David Walls; Kristina Pearson; Eric Terrell; Elizabeth Poynter; Eric Capdeville, Plaintiffs, Respondents, Michael Feuer; Martin Hommel; Kami Raleigh; Bridget Becnel Delivorias; Karen Finney; Amani El-Jandali; Marvin Catalan, Plaintiffs, v. The DIAL CORPORATION, a/k/a, Dial Corporation, a/k/a, The Dial Corporation, Inc., Defendant, Petitioner, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., Defendant.
Judges: Before Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 869
Pages: 13–15

Head Matter:
Michelle CARTER; Jonathan Cessna; Alicia Gentile; Sonia Herrera; Jenny Marazzi; Megan Peterson; Sven P. Vogtland; David Walls; Kristina Pearson; Eric Terrell; Elizabeth Poynter; Eric Capdeville, Plaintiffs, Respondents, Michael Feuer; Martin Hommel; Kami Raleigh; Bridget Becnel Delivorias; Karen Finney; Amani El-Jandali; Marvin Catalan, Plaintiffs, v. The DIAL CORPORATION, a/k/a, Dial Corporation, a/k/a, The Dial Corporation, Inc., Defendant, Petitioner, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., Defendant.
No. 17-8009
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
JUDGMENT Entered: July 31, 2017
Randall Seth Crompton, Eric D. Holland, Gerard B. Schneller, Holland Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, Lucy J. Karl, Sha-heen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Respondent MICHELLE CARTER.
Randall Seth Crompton, Eric D. Holland, Gerard B. Schneller, Steven Stolze, Holland Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, Lucy J. Karl, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, David C. Rash, Rash Law Offices PA, Weston, FL, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Sedran & Ber-man, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Respondent JONATHAN CESSNA.
Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Fort Myers, FL, Fred R. Rosenthal, Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington, NY, for Plaintiff MICHAEL FEUER.
Jayne A. Goldstein, Shepherd Finkel-man Miller & Shah, Ft Lauderdale, FL, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm, San Clemente, CA, James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, Media, PA, for Plaintiff-Respondent ALICIA GENTILE.
Tamar G. Arminak, Mark J. Geragos, Shelley Kaufman, Geragos & Geragos PC, Los Angeles, CA, Lucy J. Karl, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Respondent SONIA HERRERA.
Stuart A. Davidson, Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, Boca Raton, FL, Mark J. Dearman, Cullin A. O’Brien, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Melville, NY, Edward K. O’Brien, O’Brien Law Firm, P.C., Manchester, NH, for Plaintiff MARTIN HOMMEL.
Douglas P. Dehler, O’Neil Cannon Holl-inan DeJong & Laing SC, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Respondent MEGAN PETERSON.
Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Alexandria, LA, Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Chaikin Law Firm PLLC, Fort Myers, FL, Lucy J. Karl, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, Fred R. Rosenthal, Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington, NY, for Plaintiff-Respondent SVEN P. VOGTLAND.
Randall Seth Crompton, Eric D. Holland, Gerard B. Schneller,' Holland Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Sédran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID WALLS.
Edward K. O’Brien, O’Brien Law Firm, P.C., Manchester, NH, for Plaintiff KAMI RALEIGH.
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Salvadore Christina, Jr., Becnel Law Firm LLC, Reserve, LA, Robert M. Becnel, Law Offices of Robert M. Becnel, Laplace, LA, Matthew B. Moreland, Law Office of Matthew B. Moreland, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiffs BRIDGET BECNEL DELIVORIAS, KAREN FINNEY.
Lucy J. Karl, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, Adam J, Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Joseph J. Siprut, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Respondent KRISTINA PEARSON.
Miriam Leigh Schimmel, Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Initiative Legal Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff AMANI EL-JANDALI.
Reginald Von Terrell, Terrell Law Group, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Respondent ERIC TERRELL.
Sean T. Keith, Keith Miller Butler Schneider & Pawlick PLLC, for Plaintiff MARVIN CATALAN.
Lucy J. Karl, Shaheen & Gordon PA, Concord, NH, for Plaintiff-Respondent ELIZABETH POYNTER.
Salvadore Christina, Jr., Becnel Law Firm LLC, Reserve, LA, Jim S. Hall, Hall Law Office LLC, Metairie, LA, Matthew B. Moreland, Law Office of Matthew B. Moreland, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Respondent ERIC CAPDEVTLLE.
Eugene F. Assaf, Jr., Tracie Lynn Bryant, Paul D. Clement, Jeffrey Matthew Harris, Matthew Rowen, Edwin John U, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, Karl A. Bekeny, Tucker Ellis LLP, Cleveland, OH, Paul E. Benson, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI, Amy Bloom, Beasley Kramer & Galardi, P.A., Patricia Elaine Lowry, Squire Sanders <& Dempsey LLP, West Palm Beach, FL, Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Richard D. Raskin, Allison W. Reimann, Eugene A. Schoon, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, John E. Galvin, III, Jonathan H. Garside, Fox Gal-vin, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Robert Harrex Miller, Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green PA, Manchester, NH, Chad W. Pekron, Robert Ryan Younger, Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow PLLC, Little Rock, AR, John C. Theisen, Theisen Bowers & Associates LLC, Fort Wayne, IN, Robert C. Tucker, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Petitioner.
Before Torruella, Thompson, and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), the defendant-petitioner seeks leave from this court to appeal the district court's grant of class certification in the underlying multi-district litigation. As an initial matter, the defendant-petitioner's motion for leave to file a reply is granted. The tendered reply is accepted for fíling and has been considered by the court. Having carefully considered the parties' filings and relevant portions of the record, we conclude that the requirements for interlocutory review have not been met here. See Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 293-94 (1st Cir. 2000) (setting out factors to be considered when deciding whether to allow review pursuant to Rule 23(f)). Specifically, we conclude that the defendant-petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the district court's Rule 23 analysis is sufficiently "questionable" to warrant immediate review. Id. at 293. Accordingly, the petition for leave to appeal is denied.