Hamzeh v. Pharmavite LLC

Background

Guity Hamzeh alleged that Pharmavite LLC and Nature Made Nutritional Products deceptively labeled several Nature Made fish-oil capsule products with the statement “Helps support a healthy heart.” She alleged that the statement was false because multiple randomized trials comparing fish-oil supplements with a placebo found no cardiovascular benefit. She brought the lawsuit for a proposed nationwide class and two subclasses.

Pharmavite previously moved to dismiss Hamzeh’s claims and to strike parts of her complaint. On February 26, 2025, the court denied both motions. Pharmavite then sought permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier order.

Reasons for Denying Reconsideration

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party seeking permission to request reconsideration of an interlocutory order—an order that does not finally resolve all claims and parties—must show reasonable diligence and one of three specified grounds: a material difference in fact or law that the party did not previously know about despite reasonable diligence; new material facts or a change in law after the order; or a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented.

Pharmavite argued under Rule 7-9(b)(1) that a decision called Bowler created a material difference in law. The court rejected that argument because Pharmavite acknowledged that it learned of Bowler at most a few weeks before the February 26 order and was preparing to submit it when that order was issued. The court therefore found that Pharmavite knew about the purported legal difference when the earlier order was entered.

Pharmavite also argued that a decision called Magpayo created a material difference in law. The court held that Rule 7-9(b)(1) applies only to differences existing when the party files the motion for leave, and Magpayo was issued three days after Pharmavite filed its motion. Pharmavite alternatively argued under Rule 7-9(b)(2) that Magpayo was a change in law occurring after the earlier order. The court held that this provision requires a change in controlling law, and that Magpayo did not qualify.

Finally, Pharmavite argued under Rule 7-9(b)(3) that the court had failed to consider three matters involving the scientific studies cited in Hamzeh’s complaint. The court rejected that argument, explaining that it had addressed the studies at length and had stated that they provided some direct evidence that the “supports heart health” claim was false. The court also had addressed Pharmavite’s arguments that the studies were insufficient to challenge the labeling or support Hamzeh’s allegations. The court held that disagreement with its decision was not a manifest failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments.

Other Filings and Disposition

The court DENIED Pharmavite’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 56. The court STRUCK Hamzeh’s Statement of Recent Decision and its supplement, Dkt. Nos. 69 and 70, because the filing included argument even though the local rule required a statement of recent decision to provide only a citation and a copy of the new opinion. The court directed the clerk to remove those filings from the docket. The order also TERMINATED Dkt. No. 73, Pharmavite’s request to respond to Hamzeh’s Statement of Recent Decision.