MEMORANDUM & ORDER Pending before the court is Defendant Market Solutions Group, Inc.’s (“Zavor”)1 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (See July 28, 2022 Notice of Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. 29); Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 29-3).) On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff Mirsada Muratovic filed an opposition to the motion. (See Mem. of Law in Opp. (“Opp.”) (Dkt. 30).) On September 2, 2022, Zavor filed a reply. (See Reply in Further Supp. (“Reply”) (Dkt. 31).) For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS Zavor’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. I. BACKGROUND2 On or about February 23, 2018, Muratovic suffered burns when she opened a pressure cooker with contents that remained under pressure, causing the “scalding hot contents to be forcefully ejected” from the appliance. (First Am. Compl. (“Am. Compl.”) (Dkt. 20) 7.) At the time, she was using the pressure cooker to “prepar[e] meals for herself and/or family.” (Id. 24.) According to Muratovic, the pressure cooker should have “prevent[ed] the lid from being removed with normal force while the unit remained pressurized, despite the appearance that all the pressure had been released.” (Id. 25.) While the pressure remains unreleased, there is “heat and steam still inside the unit” and opening the lid can cause the contents to be “projected” out of the appliance, potentially causing injuries, as Muratovic alleged happened to her. (Id. at 3.) That the pressure cooker could be opened before it is safe to do so is a result of a design and manufacture defect, and representations made by the manufacturer regarding the product’s safety were therefore false. (Id.
25, 27, 30.) The Complaint does not clearly specify what pressure cooker injured Muratovic. The only potential reference to the specific appliance involved in the incident is to the “EZ Lock Pressure Cooker.” (Id. 1.) The Complaint states that this pressure cooker is identical to the one “at issue in this case,” and includes a footnote linking to a product listing for a pressure cooker with that name on Zavor’s website. (Id. 1 & n.1.) Muratovic also attached to the Complaint a copy of two pages of the owner manual for an EZ Lock Pressure Cooker sold by Fagor America, Zavor’s alleged predecessor. (Ex. A to the Compl. (Dkt. 2).)3 For the purposes of this motion, the court assumes that Fagor America’s “EZ Lock Pressure Cooker” was the device that allegedly injured Muratovic. LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (“On a motion to dismiss…we must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the non-moving party’s favor.”).4 Fagor America’s connection to Zavor is similarly murky. Fagor America was succeeded by an entity referred to as “FECNA.”5 (Am. Compl.
