Rather, this motion is specifically directed to Plaintiff’s products liability claims (Counts 1, 2, and portions of 3), Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, and Plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment related to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-39-102(a)(2). As grounds for this motion, Defendants submit that: (1) Publix is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as to the Plaintiff’s claims under the Tennessee Product Liability Act because Publix had no duty to warn about the presence of tree nuts in the Chocolate Chew Cookie, and even if it did, Publix provided multiple warnings; (2) Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment on T.C.A. § 29-39-102(a)(2) is not ripe for consideration; and (3) Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages as a matter of law. In support of this Motion, Defendants incorporate by reference their Memorandum of Law, filed contemporaneously herewith, and rely on the following Exhibits, attached therein: 2 Ms. Henderson flatly denies being told anything about a food allergy or being asked whether the Cookie contained nuts.