Title: Bayer Corp. v. Leach
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 20S-CT-354
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: June 12, 2020

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 Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
 No. 19A-CT-625 
Per Curiam Opinion 
All Justices concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jun 12 2020, 1:04 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 
Page 2 of 5 
Per curiam. 
The plaintiffs, 36 women, filed a product-liability suit against the 
defendants, Bayer Corporation and some related entities, alleging 
multiple claims related to a medical device that 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. Instead of addressing the legal viability of all the 
plaintiffs’ claims, however, it addressed 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 allege that Bayer violated both Indiana’s Product Liability 
Act and other state and federal laws by covering up adverse information 
and by misleading federal regulators, the public, and the plaintiffs. The 
plaintiffs’ allegations include that Bayer committed numerous wrongful 
acts, including defective manufacturing, false and misleading marketing 
and promotions, maintaining defective warnings and labels, and 
negligently and improperly training physicians. The plaintiffs also allege 
that Bayer failed to meet certain regulatory obligations, including failing 
to timely and properly update warnings and labels, failing to report and 
respond to adverse events, failing to report negative clinical studies, and 
failing to perform post-market studies and surveillance. 
Responding to these allegations, Bayer filed a motion for judgment on 
the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead their 
claims and 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 Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 
Page 3 of 5 
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs’ 
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 those as it had identified a claim upon which relief could be 
granted. Id. at 1135. 
Having granted transfer, thereby vacating 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 plaintiffs’ claims.  
Discussion 
Indiana is a notice pleading state and requires that pleadings contain 
only “a short and plain 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, claims requiring different “research, evidence, arguments, and 
litigation strategy” require discrete factual allegations. 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). KS&E Sports 
v. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892, 898 (Ind. 2017). In reviewing a motion under 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case 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 Trust 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 562; Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728, 731 (Ind. 
2010). So when a pleaded claim provides no circumstances in which relief 
can 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 plaintiffs allege several sets 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 preserves the entire complaint. But that is 
not correct. In a complaint with multiple claims, the viability of a single 
claim does not immunize a separate, 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 plaintiffs’ claims. 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
 
 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-354 | June 12, 2020 
Page 5 of 5 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L A N TS 
Mary Nold Larimore 
Robert A. Jorczak 
Ice Miller LLP 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
Erika L. Maley 
Christopher A. Eiswerth 
Sidley Austin LLP 
Washington, District of Columbia 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL L E ES 
Gregory 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