Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06580/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06580-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARLESSA KNOLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. 

and TEVA BRANDED 

PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS R&D, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06580-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 52]

Plaintiff Marlessa Knoles filed the complaint in this action on November 14, 2017,

asserting that Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”) and Teva Branded 

Pharmaceuticals Products R&D, Inc. (“Teva Branded”) are liable for injuries she suffered due to 

implantation and removal of a Paragard Intrauterine Device (“IUD”). See Compl., ECF 2. Both 

Defendants answered the complaint on March 15, 2018. See Answers, ECF 24, 26. The answers 

raise numerous affirmative defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(c). The motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND for the reasons 

discussed below.

 I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that in 2004, she had a Paragard IUD implanted as her form of birth 

control. Compl. ¶ 15. More than a decade later, on May 14, 2015, Plaintiff scheduled a procedure 

to remove the IUD. Compl. ¶ 16. During the procedure, the IUD broke into multiple pieces, only 

one of which could be retrieved at the time. Id. Plaintiff had a second procedure on May 27, 

2015, at which time a second piece of the IUD was retrieved. Compl. ¶ 17. A third piece remains 

embedded in Plaintiff’s pelvis, and a hysterectomy would be required to remove it. Compl. ¶ 18. 

Case 5:17-cv-06580-BLF Document 62 Filed 01/23/19 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The embedded piece of IUD causes Plaintiff to suffer from vaginal pressure, frequent urination, 

and discomfort during normal life activities. Compl. ¶ 19.

Plaintiff alleges that both Teva USA and Teva Branded are Delaware corporations that 

maintain their principal places of business in Pennsylvania. Compl. ¶ 2. She asserts state law 

products liability and negligence claims against Defendants based on boilerplate allegations that 

“[a]t all relevant times the defendants, through their agents, servants, and employees, designed, 

researched, manufactured, labeled, packaged, promoted, marketed and/or sold Paragard 

Intrauterine Devices.” Compl. ¶ 10.

 II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed – but 

early enough not to delay trial – a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” A Rule 12(c) 

motion is “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the same legal standard applies 

to both. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 

2011). Thus, when considering a Rule 12(c) motion, a district court “must accept the facts as pled 

by the nonmovant.” Id. at 1053. The district court then must apply the Iqbal standard to 

determine “whether the complaint’s factual allegations, together with all reasonable inferences, 

state a plausible claim for relief.” Cafasso, 637 F.3d at 1054 & n.4 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662 (2009)).

A district court generally may not consider materials outside the pleadings in deciding a 

motion under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c), and if such materials are presented to the court 

and not excluded, the motion must be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the 

pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for 

summary judgment under Rule 56.”). A district court may, however, consider the following 

materials without converting a Rule 12(c) motion to a Rule 56 motion: “(1) exhibits to the 

nonmoving party’s pleading, (2) documents that are referred to in the non-moving party’s 

pleading, or (3) facts that are included in materials that can be judicially noticed.” Yang v. Dar AlHandash Consultants, 250 F. App’x 771, 772 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Case 5:17-cv-06580-BLF Document 62 Filed 01/23/19 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) on the basis that this 

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. A federal district court may exercise either general or 

specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 

117, 127-28 (2014). “[A] court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or 

foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with 

the State are so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum 

State.” Id. at 127 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast, specific jurisdiction 

exists when the defendant’s contacts with the forum state are more limited but the plaintiff’s 

claims arise out of or relate to those contacts. Id. 

Defendants attempt to establish lack of personal jurisdiction through the declaration of 

Brian Shanahan, Secretary of Teva USA, which is submitted with their motion for judgment on 

the pleadings. See Shanahan Decl., ECF 52-1. Mr. Shanahan states that Teva Branded has never 

manufactured or sold Paragard IUDs at any time, that Teva USA has never manufactured Paragard 

IUDs, and that Teva USA has sold Paragard IUDs but not at any time prior to December 31, 2004. 

Shanahan Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her IUD was implanted in 2004, 

see Compl. ¶ 15, Mr. Shanahan’s declaration would establish that Defendants neither

manufactured nor sold the IUD that gives rise to this lawsuit if the declaration could be 

considered. However, the Court cannot consider the declaration on this Rule 12(c) motion under 

the authorities cited above. The declaration does not fall into any of the categories of documents 

which may be considered on a Rule 12(c) motion, in that it is not attached as an exhibit to the 

complaint, it is not referred to in the complaint, and it is not an appropriate subject for judicial 

notice. See Yang, 250 F. App’x at 772. 

At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel argued that the case law is well-established that when 

a defendant brings a motion challenging personal jurisdiction, the Court may consider evidence 

submitted by the parties. While counsel is correct that declarations and similar evidence may be 

considered when a personal jurisdiction challenge is brought by means of a motion to dismiss, see 

Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015), the Court has been unable to locate any 

Case 5:17-cv-06580-BLF Document 62 Filed 01/23/19 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

authority for the proposition that a court may consider such evidence in connection with a motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. To the contrary, Rule 12 itself and all of the cases reviewed by the 

Court indicate that evidence such as the Shanahan declaration may not be considered when 

evaluating a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a 

motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not 

excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.”); 

Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1989) (reversing 

grant of judgment on the pleadings where district court relied on declaration and document 

submitted by moving party); Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 137 F. Supp. 

3d 1157, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[A] declaration is not appropriate for the court to consider on a 

motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings. . . . On such motions, the court may 

only consider the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, and judicially 

noticed facts.”). These decisions are consistent with the express requirement in Rule 12 that a 

motion asserting certain defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction, “must be made before 

pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Because Rule 12 does not 

contemplate assertion of a personal jurisdiction challenge in a post-answer motion, the Rule does 

not provide for consideration of evidence relevant to such a challenge under Rule 12(c). 

The Court nonetheless concludes that judgment on the pleadings is warranted in this case. 

Although framed in terms of personal jurisdiction, the real thrust of Defendants’ argument is that 

they did not manufacture or sell the IUD implanted in Plaintiff. That argument goes to the issue of 

whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, which is a proper subject for a Rule 12(c) motion. Defendants 

clearly cannot be liable for injuries arising from the IUD implanted in Plaintiff if they had no 

involvement with the IUD.

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Defendant’s involvement with the IUD are purely 

boilerplate. Plaintiff alleges “[a]t all relevant times the defendants, through their agents, servants, 

and employees, designed, researched, manufactured, labeled, packaged, promoted, marketed 

and/or sold Paragard Intrauterine Devices.” Compl. ¶ 10. All of Plaintiff’s allegations are in a 

similar vein. Plaintiff does not allege any specific facts showing what role either Defendant 

Case 5:17-cv-06580-BLF Document 62 Filed 01/23/19 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

actually played in the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries. It is insufficient for Plaintiff to 

simply group the two Defendants together and allege that they designed and/or manufactured 

and/or marketed and/or sold the IUD. See Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 295 (9th Cir. 1996)

(Allegations which lump multiple defendants together are insufficient to put any one defendant on 

notice of the conduct upon which the claims against it are based.). Plaintiff must allege facts 

plausibly alleging what conduct on the part of each Defendant gives rise to liability for Plaintiff’s 

injuries. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is 

GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court has reservations as to whether these claims 

can be reasserted against Teva USA and Teva Branded consistent with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11, given the information contained in Mr. Shanahan’s declaration. However, Plaintiff 

and her counsel certainly are entitled to an opportunity to clarify Plaintiff’s claims.

 IV. ORDER

(1) The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND;

(2) Any amended complaint shall be filed on or before February 22, 2019; and

(3) Leave to amend is limited to the defects identified in this order. Plaintiff may not 

add new parties or claims without obtaining prior express leave of the Court.

Dated: January 23, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06580-BLF Document 62 Filed 01/23/19 Page 5 of 5