Aggressive And Respected Indiana Trial Lawyers

A Court Must Address All the Claims When Ruling on a Motion to Dismiss; Bayer Corporation v. Leach

On Behalf of | Jan 10, 2023 | Blog

This case points out an issue for courts, more than litigants. But it is important for us to know it, so that we can make sure that courts address issues properly.

36 women brought a mass product-liability action related to a medical device against Bayer. Bayer moved for judgment on the pleadings on all of the plaintiffs’ various claims, arguing that the claims were preempted. The trial court denied that motion, and Bayer appealed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the manufacturing defect claims were well-pleaded and not preempted. It then concluded that it need not address the plaintiff’s other claims, as it had identified a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court found this was error and granted transfer to correct this error.

The Court started by reaffirming that Indiana is a notice pleading state.

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.”

A Rule 12(C) motion tests the sufficiency of the pleadings because “there is no need to put either the parties or the court through costly and time-consuming litigation” if the pleading “provides no circumstances in which relief can be granted.” But one wellpleaded claim does not justify other insufficiently pleaded claims.

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.

Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for it to address the viability of the other claims.

If a defendant moves to dismiss multiple claims, then a court is obliged to address the viability of each of those claims, even after it determines that one claim is viable.