I N T H E



# Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 20S

- CT

- 354 

## Bayer Corporation, et al., Appellants

- Defendants
,



### – v

–


## Rene Leach, et al., Appellees

- Plaintiffs.

Decided: June 12, 2020 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court , No. 49D14

- 1803

- CT

- 12218

The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge

On Petition to Tra ns fer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

No. 19A

- CT

- 625

Per Curiam Opinion All Justices concur.Indiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CT

- 354 | June 12, 2020 Page 2 of 5



### Per curiam.

The plaintiffs , 36 women, filed a product

- liability suit against the d efendants, Bayer Corporation and some related entities , alleging multiple claims related to a medical device t hat Bayer manufactured. Later , Bayer filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 12(C)

. The trial court denied Bayer’s motion but certified it for interlocutory appeal

. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court

. I nstead of addressing the legal viability of all the
p laintiffs’ claims, however, it address ed the legal viability of only one

. Concluding the Court of Appeals should have addressed the merits of all the claims , we grant transfer and remand to the Court of Appeals to address the viability of each claim.


## Facts and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs alleg e that Bayer violated both Indiana’s Product Liability Act and other state and federal law s by covering up adverse information and by misleading federal reg ulators , the public , and the pl aintiffs . The plaintiffs ’ allegations include that Bayer committed numerous wrongful
act s , including defective manufacturing , false and misleading marketing and promotions , maintaining defective warnings and labels , and negligently and improperly training physicians

. T he plaintiffs also allege that Bayer failed to meet certain regulatory obligations , including failing to timely and properly update warnings and labels, fa i ling to report and respond to adverse events, faili ng to report negative clinical studies, and failing to perform post

- market studies and surveillance. Responding to these allegations , Bayer fi led a motion for judgment on the pleading s , arguing that the p laintiffs failed to adequately plead their claims an d that their claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The trial court summarily denied Bayer’s motion. At Bayer ’ s request, the trial court certified its interlocutory order, and the Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B).Indiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CT

- 354 | June 12, 2020 Page 3 of 5 The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the p laintiffs’ manufacturing defect claim was sufficiently pleaded and not preempted by federal law. Bayer Corp. v. Leach , 139 N.E. 3d 1127 , 1134

– 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), vacated

. The Court of Appeals acknowledged other legal theories and factual allegations in the pleadings but concluded that it need not address th ose as it had identified a claim upon w hich relief could be granted. Id. at 1135. Having granted transfer, thereby vac a ting the Court of Appeals opinion , see App. R. 58(A) , we remand to the Court of Appeals to consider whether Bayer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was properly denied as to all the p laintiffs’ claims.



## Discussion

Indiana is a notice pleading state and re quires that pleadings contain only “ a short and p lain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief [

. ] ” Ind. Trial Rule 8(A) (1)

. Plaintiffs need not “set out in precise detail the facts upon which the claim is based, [but they] must still plead the operative facts necessary to set forth an actionable claim.” Trail v. Boys & Girls Club of Nw. Indiana , 845 N.E.2d 130, 135 (Ind. 2006). This means that although “highly desirable,” a precise legal theory in a pleading

— a principle connecting a claim to the relief sought

— “is not required

. ” State v. Rankin , 260 Ind. 228, 231, 294 N.E.2d 604, 606 (1973). The purpose of notice pleading is to inform a defendant of a claim’s operative facts so the defendant can “prepare to meet it.” Noblesville Redevelopment Comm’n v. Noblesville Assocs

. Ltd. P ’ ship , 674 N.E.2d 558, 564 (Ind. 1996) ( quoting Jack H. Friedenthal, et al., Civil Procedure § 5.7, at 253 (2nd Ed. 1993)). Although a single complaint often contains multiple claims , c laims requiring different “research, evidence, arguments, and li tigation st rat egy” require discrete factual allegation s

. Noblesville Redevelopment Comm ’ n , 674 N.E.2d at 564. The sufficiency of the pleadings’ claims and defenses is tested by a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Trial Rule 12(C). K S&E Sports

v. Runnels , 72 N.E.3d 892, 898 (Ind. 2017). In reviewing a motion underIndiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CT

- 354 | June 12, 2020 Page 4 of 5

12(C), a court must “base [its] ruling solely on the pleadings” and “accept as true the material facts alleged in the complaint.” Id. ( quoting Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. National T rust Ins. Co. , 3 N.E.3d 1, 5 (Ind. 2014)). A court should grant the motion “only when it is clear from the face of the pleadings that the plaintiff cannot in any way succeed under the operative facts and allegations made therein.” Noblesville Redevelopment Comm ’ n , 674 N.E.2d at 56 2 ; Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg , 925 N.E.2d 728, 731 (Ind. 2010). So when a ple a d ed claim provide s no circumstance s in which relief

c an be granted, there is no need to put either the parties or the court through costly and time

- consuming litigation.

Here, like in most complex litigation, the p laintiffs allege several s ets of operative facts , amounting to several discrete claims

. The Court of Appeals addressed the legal viability of only one of those claims : defective manufacturing

. The Court of Appeals did not analyze the remaining ones , reasoning that any viable claim preserve s the entire complaint. But that is
not correct. In a complaint with multiple claims, t he viability of a single claim does not immunize a separa te, deficient claim from judgment on the pleadings. When analyzing pleadings for Rule 12(C) purposes, Indiana courts are required to address the viability of each claim presented, disposing of only unviable ones. See, e.g., KS&E Sports , 72 N.E.3d at 907

– 08 (finding judgment on the pleadings was proper for some, but not all, of the alleged claims). Here, the Court of Appeals failed to address the viability of each claim presented in the pleadings. We remand to the Court of Appeals to consider the viability of each of the p laintiffs’ claims.



### Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.Indiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CT

- 354 | June 12, 2020 Page 5 of 5 A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T S Mary Nold Larimore Robert A. Jorczak Ice Miller LLP Indianapolis, Indiana
Erika L. Maley Christopher A. Eiswerth Sid l ey Austin L LP Washington, District of Columbia

A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S Gregor y J. Bubalo Kate A. Dunnington Bubalo Law PLC Louisville, Kentucky

Lee C. Christie Katherine A. Franke Cline Farrell Christie Lee & Bell, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana