WPCt ]>͉2W1W(n&Q=ä}/Qw2Z?Z;Hxf^&_M F֪a E[ M+a[>EK`C K'qvv6icCYTtV4З "Jy3CR1QWRqSEqrƘeTKlFܣ?}.wŽ(FFѭ[9So 07rC<}aygO UUT`D1&k)2 "C/?d.ћbPqIpJV9@Z@N~syJt:9 Q -j$qtrZ21ZEI3˅ U MݼIM֩k9؀Y8QE  OZܭ]%:zIґ[YNs R Pu,hLoPuu(#0 % 0D 0(;U:c 0N&&N(UF*U>p^ w4Efa mb:& U@ : B X 0c :b 1u 72U8CC{{{{ BWHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u$ !        0  Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular<\( 9Z+&Courier RegularM.s u-E3|x TABLE AU u$      *    _Hon.JohnR.Gibson,oftheEighthCircuit,sittingby  designation.- - 0#"Xd#   u$      **    _Hon.MortonGreenberg,oftheThirdCircuit,sittingby  designation.(@ Z(Times New Roman      u$      2    _ XV$XXXThe_Bragas_Ԁoriginallyfiledthisclaimagainst_Lightolier_.  _Genlyte_'scounselenteredanappearanceas"_Lightolier_"#XV$XX XV$q# XV$XXXV$Ԁinits  petitionforremoval,whichstatesthat_Lightolier_Ԁceasedtoexist \ in1991. #XV$XX XV$# (;3$2#  0  .3  0   0 u$      3    _ XV$XXXThe_Bragas_'amendedcomplaintnamed_Genlyte_Ԁasthedefendant.#XV$XX XV$q#3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)< 9Z+ Courier New   u$      1    _Theamendedcomplaintdoesnotadmit,butthe_Bragas_Ԁstatein  theirbrief,thatAntoniohasreceivedworkers'compensation  benefits,presumablypaidbyoronbehalfof_Genlyte_ԄThomas,his \ immediateemployeratthetimeofinjury. d !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     NvOY !XV$XXXNotforPublicationinWest'sFederalReporter  CitationLimitedPursuantto1stCir.Loc.R.32.3    !]X!XV$t!]UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#!]t##!XV$X!]#!/X!XV$ x !/FortheFirstCircuit#!/m#  /!/ XV$X / L A') ` dE< ` A    XV$XX XV$No.021116 g  @ DEBRABRAGA;ANTONIOBRAGA,  c  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,  9  @tt)v.   @#_GENLYTE_,INC., A  @<< Defendant,Appellee. g  A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS ~ @P P [Hon.RyaW.Zobel,U.S.DistrictJudge] T @*A') ` dE<` A P @'Before 5 @ Selya,CircuitJudge,  @  JohnR.Gibson, #  *      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge, = @4 4 andGreenberg,< #  **      ׀SeniorCircuitJudge. 9   A') ` dE<` A !       BrianR._Cunha_,withwhomBrian_Cunha_Ԁ&Associates,P.C.was z # onbrief,forappellants. P!$   BrianH._Lamkin_,withwhomTimothyP._VanDyck_andEdwards& &"v% _Angell_,_LLP_wereonbrief,forappellee. "L& *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  $($   SI %\ ) d@37664d@S_February13,2003 %2!+ _ RHC&"," d@37664 d@ R( %\ -  (* !    `  '#-? Nv 8V$XXdd8   _   ` JOHNR.GIBSON,SeniorCircuitJudge. AntonioandDebra  Bragaappealfromanorderofthedistrictcourtdismissing,under x Rule12(b)6oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,theiramended $t complaintagainstGenlyteGroup,Inc.basedoninjuriesthat   AntonioBragasustainedwhileoperatingapressduringthecourse |  ofhisemploymentwithGenlyteThomasGroup,LLC.TheBragasclaim ( x  thattheseinjurieswerecausedbyadefectivepressthathadbeen $  modifiedonseveraloccasionseitherbyGenlyteorits   predecessors,andarguethattheycansueGenlyteGroup,Inc.as ,|  thesuccessorinliabilityforthenegligenceofLightolier,Inc., ( acompanywhichmergedintoGenlytein1992.TheBragasalsoargue  thatdismissalwithoutleavetofileafurtheramendedcomplaint 0 wasinerror.Wereverseandremand.  , @tt)I.     ` OnreviewingthisFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6)order,we 4 recitethefactsasallegedbytheBragasandacceptastrueall 0 wellpleadedfactualavermentsandindulgeallreasonable   inferencesinfavoroftheplaintiff.SECv.SGLtd.,265F.3d42, 8!" 46(1stCir.2001).Intheiramendedcomplaint,theBragasallege "4$ thatAntonioBragasustainedhisinjurywhileoperatingahydraulic $& pressdesignedtoshapesheetmetalforthemanufactureoflight <&!( fixturesataplantinFallRiver,Massachusetts.Inorderto '8#* operatethispress,aworkerwouldhavetopushtwoelectrical )$, buttonsattachedtothebodyofthepress.Aslongasbothbuttons @+&. werepushedwithinfoursecondsofoneanother,thepresswould  activate,drivingthepressramdownintoa"diespace"intowhich \ thesheetmetaldesignatedformoldingwouldbeinserted.On X November18,1998,Mr.Bragawasworkingwiththepresswhena   pieceofmetalinsertedintothediespacecausedittojam.Mr. `  Bragaattemptedtocorrectthisproblembymanuallyremovingthe  \  pieceofmetalthatcausedthejamfromthepress.Inthecourse   ofleaningintothepresstoremovethejam,whilehislefthand d  wasunderthepressram,heinadvertentlydepressedbothpalm `  buttonswithinafoursecondinterval.Thepresswasactivated,   andthepressramcrasheddownonMr.Braga'slefthand,severing h allofhisfingers. d    ` TheBragasallegethatatthetimeofhisinjury,Mr.  BragawasemployedbyanentitycalledGenlyteThomasGroup,LLC.# #  1      ׀ l GenlyteThomaswasformedonApril24,1998,afterthedefendant, h Genlyte,hadmergedwithanothercorporation,ThomasIndustries.  GenlytebecameacontrollingmemberofGenlyteThomasandcontinued p  toownthemachineryattheFallRiverplantafterthemerger. !l" Beforethismerger,GenlytehadalsobeenMr.Braga'simmediate "$ employer.Furthermore,Genlytehadpreviouslyacquiredthe t$& hydraulicpressfromanothercorporationnamedLightolier,Inc.  &p!( ("Lightolier"),whichinturnhadoriginallyacquiredthepressin  1982.TheBragasallegethatLightolierwasonceasubsidiaryof \ Genlyte;however,sometimein1992,GenlytemergedwithLightolier X  anddissolvedthecorporation,althoughitcontinuedtodobusiness   undertheLightoliername.  `      ` TheBragasoriginallyfiledaclaimfornegligenceand  \  lossofconsortiuminMassachusettsstatecourt. #  2      ׀Genlyteremoved   thecasetofederalcourtonthebasisofdiversityjurisdiction, d  28U.S.C.1332(2000).Afterremoval,theBragasfiledan `  amendedcomplaintthatallegedthatLightolierhadpurchasedthe   pressonJanuary12,1982,andthatsincetheneitherGenlyte h "and/orLightolier"hadnegligentlymodifiedthepressonfive d differentoccasions. #  3      ׀AlthoughtheyallegethatGenlyteitself  negligentlymodifiedthepressonNovember14, 1995,February15, l 1996,andMarch29,1996,theyalsomaketwootherallegationsof 4 negligentmodificationwithoutspecifyingthepartymakingthe 0 modifications.Fromthefaceofthecomplaint,itisnotclear   fromthesetwoallegationswhethertheBragasareattemptingto 8!" stateaclaimagainstGenlytedirectlyorasthesuccessorin "4$ liabilitytothenegligenceofLightolier.Nevertheless,wemust $& construetheseallegationsinthelightmostfavorabletothe    Bragas,andsoweinterprettheamendedcomplaint,asurgedbythe \ Bragas'counselbothinthedistrictcourtandonappeal,toallege X successorliability.Thisistheissuethatthepartieshave   briefedexhaustivelybeforeus. `     ` GenlytemovedunderFedR.Civ.P.12(b)(6)todismiss  \  theamendedcomplaint,arguingthatasthemajorityownerof   GenlyteThomasGroup,LLC,Mr.Braga'semployeratthetimeof d  injury,itisimmunefromsuitundertheexclusivityprovisionof `  theMassachusettsWorkers'CompensationAct.Genlytealsoargued   thatitisimmuneeveniftheamendedcomplaintisreadtoallege h negligenceonthepartofLightolier,becausethecomplaintalleges d onlythatLightoliermodifiedthemachinefortheuseofitsown  employees.Inresponse,theBragaspresentedafurtheramended l complainttothedistrictcourtwhichstatedthatGenlyte"by h virtueofthemergerwith'Lightolier,Inc.,'wasresponsiblefor  thenegligentmodifications,changes,repairs,and/ormaintenance p  ofthesubjecthydraulicpressthatcaused[Mr.Braga's]injuries," !l" seeminglyanattempttoallegemoreclearlythatGenlytewasliable "$ forthenegligenceofLightolier.Thedistrictcourtmadea t$& handwrittenentryonthebottomofGenlyte's12(b)(6)motion  &p!( stating,"Allowed,asLightolier,Inc.wouldalsobeanemployer '#* forthispurpose.Herbolsheimerv.SMSHoldingCo.,Inc.,608 x)$, N.W.2d487(Mich.Ct.App.2000)," anddismissedthecaseinits $+t&. entirety.       ` @88)II. \    ` Wereviewdenovothedistrictcourt'sdismissalofthe X Bragas'amendedcomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimunderFed.   R.Civ.P.12(b)(6).SECv.SGLtd.,265F.3d42,46(1stCir. `  2001).Wereversetheorderofthedistrictcourtifweconclude  \  thatthefactsviewedinthelightmostfavorabletotheBragas   justifyrecoveryunder"anysupportablelegaltheory."Cruzv. d  Melecio,204F.3d14,21(1stCir.2000)."[A]complaintshould `  notbedismissedforfailuretostateaclaimunlessitappears   beyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsin h supportofhisclaimwhichwouldentitlehimtorelief."Conleyv. d Gibson,355U.S.41,4546(1957).     ` Sincethiscasecomestothefederalcourtsonremoval l basedondiversityjurisdiction,wemustunderErieRailroadCo.v. h Tompkins,304U.S.64(1938),applystatesubstantivelaw,whichin  thiscaseisthelawofMassachusetts.AsweobservedinBlinzler p  v.MarriottInternational,Inc.,81F.3d1148,1151(1stCir. !l" 1996),thetaskofafederalcourtsittingindiversityislimited, "$ inthefirstinstance,toapplyingthoserulesoflawannouncedby t$& thehighestcourtoftheState.Ifthatcourthasnotdirectly  &p!( addressedtheissuesraisedinthecase,thefederalcourtmust '#* then"ascertaintherulethestatecourtwouldmostlikelyfollow x)$, underthecircumstances,evenifourindependentjudgmentonthe $+t&. questionmightdiffer."Id.Wemayseekguidance"inanalogous  statecourtdecisions,persuasiveadjudicationsbycourtsofsister \ states,learnedtreatises,andpublicpolicyconsiderations X identifiedinstatedecisionallaw."Id.      ` Here,thedistrictcourtwasrequiredtoapplythe `  substantivelawofMassachusettsindecidingwhethertheBragas  \  haveallegedfactssufficienttostateaclaimforrelief.Moores   v.Greenberg,834F.2d1105,1107(1stCir.1987).Forthat d  reason,itsonelineorderrelyingonHerbolsheimerv.SMSHolding `  Co.,Inc.,608N.W.2d487(Mich.Ct.App.2000),acasedecidedby   theMichiganCourtofAppeals,isoflittlehelp.Thedistrict h courtmadenoefforttodeterminewhethertheamendedcomplaint d statesaclaimunderMassachusettslaw,underthestandardweset  outinBlinzler.Wearereluctanttoaffirmanorderofdismissal l wherethedistrictcourtneglectedtoanalyzethequestionsraised h bythecomplaintunderthelawgoverningthecase,especiallywhen,  asnow,Massachusettslawarguablymaypermitthemaintenanceofa p  causeofaction.  !l"    ` Furthermore,Herbolsheimerwasprimarilyconcernedwith "$ thescopeofthedualpersonadoctrineundertheearlierMichigan t$& SupremeCourtcaseofHowardv.White,523N.W.2d220(Mich.1994).  &p!( BoththemajorityanddissentinHerbolsheimerdiscussedatlength '#* thedecisionoftheNewYorkCourtofAppealsinBillyv. x)$, ConsolidatedMachineToolCorp.,412N.E.2d934,939941(N.Y. $+t&. 1980).Billyheldliableacorporationthatwastheplaintiff's  employerbutwhichhadbecomethesuccessorinliabilitytoanother \ corporationthatithadacquiredandwhichhadmanufacturedthe X machinethatinjuredtheplaintiff.Herbolsheimer,608N.W.2dat   49496(majority),499501(dissent).Inaddition,boththe `  majorityandthedissentinHerbolsheimercitedGurryv.Cumberland  \  Farms,550N.E.2d127(Mass.1990),inthecourseoftheir   analysis.Herbolsheimer,608N.W.2dat497(majority),499n.2 d  (dissent).Gurry,550N.E.2dat13031,wasadecisionbythe `  SupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusettsthatexplicitlyappliedthe   dualpersonadoctrineinthecontextofsuccessorliability . That h Herbolsheimer,thebasisforthedistrictcourt'sruling,presents 0 differingviewsunderMichiganlawastosuccessorliabilitypoints , tothenecessityoffocuseddiscoveryandananalysisofthisissue  underMassachusettslaw.ThediscussionofGurry,aMassachusetts 4 case,andBilly,uponwhichGurryreliedinpart,byboththe 0 majorityanddissentinHerbolsheimerhighlightsthenecessityof   ananalysisofamorefullydevelopedfactualscenariounder 8!" Massachusettslaw.Inotherwords,thecomplexityoftheissues "4$ raisedinHerbolsheimerandGurryunderscorestheneedtoanalyze, $& inaconcretefactualsetting,thequestionofwhetheranemployer <&!( thatwasalsothesuccessorininteresttoaformercorporation '8#* whosenegligenceallegedlycausedtheplaintiff'sinjurycouldbe )$, liableunderMassachusettslaw.Certainly,ananalysisofGurryis @+&. centraltothisquestion.      ` Thequestionsraisedbytheintersectionoftheimmunity \ ofanemployerundertheworkers'compensationschemeandsuccessor X liabilityarecomplexandfactbound.Becauseweencounterthese   issuesonappealfromaRule12(b)(6)motion,wearenotprepared `  toconcludeatthisstagethattheBragascanprovenosetoffacts  \  thatwouldentitlethemtorelief.SeeConley,355U.S.at4546.      `     h @(III. d     ` Wedonotpretendthattheamendedcomplaintisamodel `  ofclarity.TheBragas,byabetterdelineatedpleading,could   probablyhaveavoidedtimeandtrouble.Butdespiteitslackof h specificity,wecannotsaythattheamendedcomplaintstumblesover  d  themodestthresholderectedbyRule12(b)(6).Forthatreason,we    reverseandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththis l opinion.Weregardthedistrictcourt'sconstructivedenialofthe h leavetofurtheramendthecomplaintasmoot,buttheBragasmay,  iftheywishtodoso,renewthatmotioninthedistrictcourt.   p      ` Reversedandremanded.Nocosts.