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, 869 F.3d 13

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.