Peter, a State A resident, has not been feeling well. A number of his Facebook friends have been promoting a product they use called "Renewal." It is a powder that they purchase from NaturCo, a small natural medicine store that only does business in one location in nearby State B. NaturCo sells a variety of products. It does not advertise outside of State B. Many of Peter's State A Facebook friends say that they go to NaturCo on a regular basis because it is the only place that they can find the Renewal product. Peter is unable to travel to State B, so he calls NaturCo and asks if they can ship him a container of Renewal. NaturCo agrees to do so. Peter gets the Renewal product and it works so well that he wants to become a distributor and sell the product to people in State A. He contacts NaturCo and explains how people in State A love the product and more of them would buy it if they could do so in State A. NaturCo agrees to send Peter a certain amount of the product each month for him to sell. Three months later, Peter sells a container of Renewal to Patrice, who is a State A resident. A few days after taking the product, she becomes very ill and is taken to the hospital. The doctors at the hospital believe the Renewal powder was either contaminated with some type of bacteria, or intentionally contains small amounts of chemicals that can cause illness in certain people who are allergic to them. The ingredients in Renewal are listed as a "top secret blend of natural items." The exact ingredients are not specifically disclosed on the packaging. Patrice sues NaturCo in federal court in State A for strict products liability. She claims that Renewal was defectively manufactured, defectively designed, and does not have adequate warning about the potential for allergic reactions to the ingredients. She seeks one million dollars in damages. NaturCo is properly served in State B pursuant to a long-arm statute and FRCP 4. NaturCo moves to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and because State A has a products liability statute that requires all strict liability claims involving any product to be screened by a panel of experts before filing in "any court." The expert panel makes factual and legal findings regarding the claims and then recommends whether the case should be allowed to go to court. If the plaintiff takes the case to court, the judge and jury must follow the panel's findings unless a judge finds that they are "arbitrary and capricious." State A put the law in place to reduce litigation costs and to attract more businesses to the state. Patrice did not present her claims to the expert panel. The court denies the motion to dismiss and determines that the state law does not apply. Six months later, Patrice discovers that VitaCo actually manufacturers and packages Renewal. She moves to amend her complaint to add VitaCo as a defendant, but the statute of limitations has expired. Patrice asserts that her failure to name VitaCo as a defendant earlier should be excused because she believed that NaturCo was the seller and manufacturer of the product, and only recently discovered otherwise. VitaCo objects and the court denies the motion to amend. VitaCo then files a timely motion to intervene as of right on the limited grounds of protecting its proprietary interest in keeping the ingredients in Renewal secret. Patrice had requested information about the ingredients as part of discovery requests in the lawsuit, so that she can establish how the product harmed her and use that information at trial. The court denies the motion. Question: Discuss whether or not the court was correct in ruling on the various motions