Temple et al v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 29 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint; granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART by dismissing any claims other than claims brought under the LPLA. The motion is otherwise DENIED. A scheduling conference will be set promptly after Bayer files its answer. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 03/08/2016. (crt,Yocum, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
MEGAN TEMPLE, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3201

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Megan and Brandon Temple (“Plaintiffs”) filed this products liability action against
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Bayer”) and alleged that Bayer’s Mirena product
was defective and caused damage.

Bayer filed a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs

responded with an amended complaint. Bayer filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22)
that is now before the court. Plaintiffs responded again with a Motion to Amend Complaint
(Doc. 29). The Motion to Amend Complaint (Record Document 29) is GRANTED.
The complaint, as amended, must set forth facts that, taken as true, state a claim
that is plausible on its face. The complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, but
it must provide the Plaintiffs’ grounds for entitlement to relief and go beyond the speculative
level. See Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-1965 (2007).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ seconded amended complaint and considered the
arguments raised by Bayer. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have asserted sufficient facts
to survive Rule 12(b)(6) review and allow their claims under the Louisiana Products Liability
Act (“LPLA”) to move forward and be tested by more substantive means. Bayer reads in
Plaintiffs’ complaint potential claims outside the scope of the LPLA and asks that they be
dismissed, but Plaintiffs do not argue in their memorandum that such claims are presented.

To the extent Plaintiffs attempt to assert any claims other than through the exclusive
remedy of the LPLA, such claims are DISMISSED. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss
(Record Document 22) is GRANTED IN PART by dismissing any claims other than claims
brought under the LPLA. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
A scheduling conference will be set promptly after Bayer files its answer.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 8th day of March, 2016.

Page 2 of 2