Glaxosmithkline Biologicals, S.A v. Hospira Worldwide, Inc. et al
Filing
47
ENTER MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John W. Darrah on 11/7/2013: Mailed notice (jmp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS,
S.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC. and
HOSPIRA, INC.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-cv-4346
Judge John W. Darrah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendants Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and Hospira, Inc. (collectively, “Hospira”) move to
amend their pending motion to dismiss the claims asserted by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals,
S.A. (“GSK”). For the reasons presented below, Hospira’s Combined Motion for Leave to
Amend the Pending Motion to Dismiss and Response to GSK’s Local Rule 78.5 Notice is
granted.
BACKGROUND
GSK is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Belgium; GSK
researches and develops vaccines. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Hospira is a Delaware corporation that
produces injectable drugs, infusion technologies, and other pharmaceutical products and has its
principal place of business located in Lake Forest, Illinois. (Id. ¶ 10.) On February 28, 2013,
GSK filed a Complaint in the Southern District of New York, alleging Hospira materially
breached and unilaterally terminated the contract between the parties for the manufacture and
production of an influenza vaccine product. (Id. ¶ 1.) Specifically, the Complaint alleges three
causes of action against Hospira for its failure to produce the vaccine product: (1) breach of
contract, (2) promissory estoppel, and (3) quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. (Id. ¶¶ 34-58.)
On December 31, 2010, GSK and Hospira entered into a Toll Manufacturing Agreement
(“Agreement”) to manufacture and produce batches of an influenza vaccine. (Compl. ¶ 15.)
Using raw materials supplied by GSK, Hospira would manufacture and produce the vaccine
product in compliance with the quality requirements set forth in the Agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.)
Additionally, the Agreement required Hospira to have validation batches ready for regulatory
filing in the year 2011. (Id. ¶ 19.) GSK alleges Hospira breached the Agreement and failed to
meet the deadline for submission of vaccine validation batches in compliance with the quality
requirements and suitable for regulatory submission. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.)
On April 12, 2013, Hospira filed a Motion to Transfer the Action to the Northern District
of Illinois or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss, arguing the cause of action should be transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois because neither of the parties had a meaningful connection to the
Southern District of New York. Hospira argued the relevant events occurred in the Northern
District of Illinois, as well as the witnesses, documents and parties are most closely connected to
this forum. Alternatively, Hospira argued GSK’s Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety
as to Hospira, Inc. and that Counts II and III of the Complaint should be dismissed as they are
asserted against Hospira Worldwide, Inc. On May 20, 2013, the Southern District of New York
granted Hospira’s motion to transfer the cause of action to the Northern District of Illinois, but
declined to address Hospira’s motion to dismiss the claims.
After this action was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, GSK filed notice
under Local Rule 78.5, requesting this Court to rule on Hospira’s motion to dismiss and further
seeking that Hospira be precluded from filing a successive motion to dismiss. Hospira moved
2
for leave to amend its motion to dismiss. The issue of whether Hospira should be permitted to
amend its motion to dismiss was fully briefed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a party may file a motion asserting
as a defense that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) further provides that, “except as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a
party that makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a
defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” The
exceptions under Rule 12(h)(2) allow a party to raise the defense of failure to state a claim in any
pleading proper under Rule 7(a), in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at trial. Thus, the
failure-to-state-a-claim defense is “expressly preserved against waiver” by Rule 12(h).1 Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12 Advisory Committee Notes on 1966 Amendment.
The Seventh Circuit has interpreted Rule 12(h)(2) as specifically exempting “failure-tostate-a-claim defenses from the Rule 12(g) consolidation requirement.” Ennenga v. Starns, 677
F.3d 766, 773 (7th Cir. 2012).2 The court in Ennenga found the rationale of the Rule 12(g)
consolidation requirement was to prevent piecemeal litigation of defenses, specifically the
1
The other defense not waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) is subject matter jurisdiction.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) provides that if at any time a court determines it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.
2
Although GSK relies on Makor Issues and Rights, LTD. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 02 C 4356,
2008 WL 2178150, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2008) to argue that a successive Rule 12(b)(6)
motion would be barred under Rule 12(g)(2) because it does not fall under the exceptions in Rule
12(h)(2), this case pre-dates the Seventh Circuit’s finding in Ennenga. Moreover, the case law
relied upon by GSK to support its argument that successive motions are barred under Rule
12(g)(2) also pre-dates Ennenga. GSK did not provide any binding precedent overruling
Ennenga.
3
defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient
service, that were available to the party when it filed its initial motion or pleading. Id.
ANALYSIS
Rule 12(g)(2) Waiver and Rule 12(h)(2) Exception to Waiver
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff’s complaint must
contain “a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’
sufficient to provide the defendant with ‘fair notice’ of the claim and its basis.” Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Dismissal is only appropriate if the complaint
does not “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A
petitioner’s complaint is facially plausible when it includes enough facts to allow the court to
reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556.
Here, Hospira seeks to amend its pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim by
identifying additional deficiencies in the Complaint; specifically, that GSK failed to demonstrate
the existence of a valid and enforceable contract for the manufacture and production of influenza
vaccines. In particular, Hospira seeks to argue GSK failed to state a claim because the
Complaint relies on the Agreement for the manufacture and production of vaccines and that the
parties did not actually reach an agreement on the manufacture and production of vaccines.
(Mot. to Amend Ex. A. at 8-9.) In its amended motion to dismiss, Hospira also contends New
York law applies to the alleged breach of contract claim and Illinois law applies to the
promissory estoppel, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment causes of action. (Id. at 8.)
4
Opposing Hospira’s Motion to Amend, GSK argues Hospira’s proposed amended motion
to dismiss asserting its new defense is a successive motion precluded by Rule 12(g), because the
facts and arguments were available to Hospira when it filed its initial motion. (Pl.’s Resp. at 2.)
GSK contends that a motion to dismiss does not qualify as one of the three circumstances
permitted by Rule 12(h)(2) under which subsequent defenses for failure to state a claim, join a
party, or state a legal defense can be raised (in a pleading, a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, or at trial). (Id.)
However, even if Hospira’s amended motion to dismiss is considered a successive
motion, Rule 12(g)(2) does not bar a successive motion for failure to state a claim. See Ennenga,
677 F.3d at 773 (holding a statute of limitations defense alleged in motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim is not subject to waiver when it is raised in a successive motion to dismiss
because the Rule 12(g)(2) consolidation requirement and Rule 12(g)(1) waiver do not expressly
apply to failure to state a claim defenses). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2), in
conjunction with Rule 12(h)(1), operates only to exclude the defenses of lack of personal
jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient service of process when they
are asserted in a successive motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1).
This narrow construction of Rule 12(g) and 12(h) is consistent with the purpose of the Rules to
prevent piecemeal litigation but permit a failure to state a claim defense to be raised in pre-trial
motions, pleadings, or at trial. Because Rule 12(h)(2) specifically excludes the waiver of failureto-state-a-claim defenses if they were not presented in the party’s initial motion or pleading
raising defenses, an amendment to Hospira’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
permissible.
5
Judicial Efficiency
Granting Hospira leave to amend its pending motion to dismiss also promotes judicial
efficiency. Because the Court has not yet ruled on Hospira’s pending motion to dismiss,
granting Hospira’s motion for leave to amend its pending motion to dismiss will not cause a
delay in the schedule set forth by the Court for discovery, pre-trial pleadings, and trial.
Additionally, allowing Hospira to amend its pending motion to dismiss the claims does
not prejudice GSK. GSK will have an opportunity to respond to the new arguments submitted in
the amended motion to dismiss. Moreover, it is possible that even if Hospira succeeds on its
motion to dismiss, GSK may be granted the opportunity to amend its Complaint. Any burden on
GSK in drafting additional pleadings does not outweigh the delay or inefficiency in the judicial
process that would otherwise result. Because an amendment to Hospira’s pending motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim comports with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
promotes judicial efficiency, an amendment to the pending motion to dismiss is permitted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Hospira’s Combined Motion for Leave to Amend the
Pending Motion to Dismiss and Response to GSK’s Local Rule 78.5 Notice [37] is granted.
Hospira is directed to file its Amended Motion to Dismiss forthwith.
Date:
November 7, 2013
______________________________
JOHN W. DARRAH
United States District Court Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?