Cassava Sciences, Inc. v. Bredt, 1:22-cv-09409

Cassava Sciences, Inc. sued multiple defendants for alleged defamation related to statements about its Alzheimer's drug research.
The Court previously dismissed Cassava's initial complaint but allowed a narrower Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against only the Dot.Com Defendants, focusing on statements and social media posts tied to Cassava’s Open Label Study.
Cassava declined to pursue or amend claims against QCM and the Neuroscientist Defendants in the SAC, effectively dropping them from the live case.
Cassava moved for entry of partial final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) for the dismissed claims so it could seek immediate appellate review.
The SAC still relies on complex, overlapping factual and scientific assertions, many of which overlap with those involving the dismissed parties.
All discovery is currently stayed, and the remaining defendants plan another motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entry of Partial Final Judgment (Rule 54(b))	Permitting immediate appeal would promote judicial efficiency and allow for single proceeding for damages.	Judicial efficiency is not served; overlapping factual/issues remain; would require inefficient duplicative review.	DENIED—No just reason for delay; interests of judicial administration weigh against Rule 54(b) certification.
Whether same or related issues remain to be litigated	Dismissed and remaining claims are distinct enough to justify certification.	Remaining and dismissed claims are factually and legally intertwined, especially regarding scientific context and social media statements.	DENIED—Issues are too closely related; piecemeal appeals not warranted.
Hardship or injustice justifying interlocutory appeal	Delay would create hardship by requiring multiple proceedings.	No unusual hardship or injustice identified; discovery stayed, no unnecessary costs accrue.	DENIED—No hardship justifying certification identified.
Operative complaint status	FAC (First Amended Complaint) remains operative for dismissed defendants.	The SAC is the only operative complaint; prior claims are replaced.	SAC is operative; FAC replaced in full.

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (setting standards for Rule 54(b) certification)
Brunswick Corp. v. Sheridan, 582 F.2d 175 (review of Rule 54(b) certification decisions for abuse of discretion)
Harriscom Svenska AB v. Harris Corp., 947 F.2d 627 (Second Circuit guidance on limiting Rule 54(b) certification to cases with truly distinct issues)
Novick v. AXA Network, LLC, 642 F.3d 304 (counseling against certification when related issues remain to be litigated)