United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH H. McKINLEY, Jr., Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a motion by Defendant, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., to dismiss certain portions of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [DN 10]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision.
Plaintiff, Kara Stanley, filed suit against Defendants, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer Oy, for personal injuries suffered as a result of Plaintiff being prescribed and using the product Mirena which is manufactured by Defendants. Mirena is an intrauterine system ("IUS") that is inserted by a healthcare practitioner during an office visit. Mirena is a t-shaped polyethylene frame with a steroid reservoir that releases levonorgestrel ("LNG"), a synthetic progestogen, directly into the uterus for birth control. The Federal Food and Drug Administration approved Mirena in December of 2000. Plaintiff alleges that she had Mirena inserted into her body Dr. Kerrin Dunn at Women's Healthcare of Southern Indiana in May of 2012. Plaintiff claims that on December 22, 2012, she began experiencing severe headaches and vision problems, losing vision in her left eye. Within 48 hours, Plaintiff was diagnosed with bilateral optic nerve swelling (papilledema), most likely due to pseudotumor cerebri ("PTC"). PTC is a potentially permanent brain condition that arises when too much cerebrospinal fluid in the brain causes increased intracranial pressure and increased pressure on the optic nerve leading to vision problems, and in some cases, blindness. Plaintiff maintains that her Mirena was removed on March 27, 2013. Although her Merina was removed, she has permanent damage to the optic nerve, retinal hemorrhage, and lost forty percent of vision in her left eye due to her PTC. Plaintiff alleges that her injuries were caused and/or triggered by her Mirena.
On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit asserting claims of negligence, design defect, failure to warn, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraud by suppression and concealment. On May 22, 2015, Defendant, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed a motion to dismiss the strict liability claim (Count IV), breach of implied warranty claim (Count V), and the negligent misrepresentation claim (Count VII).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a court "must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, " League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523, 527 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted), "accept all well-pled factual allegations as true[, ]" id., and determine whether the complaint "states a plausible claim for relief[, ]" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Under this standard, the plaintiff must provide the grounds for his or her entitlement to relief which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A plaintiff satisfies this standard only when he or she "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A complaint falls short if it pleads facts "merely consistent with a defendant's liability" or if the alleged facts do not "permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 678, 679. Instead, the allegations must "show that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Id. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).
Defendant moves to dismiss the strict liability claim (Count IV), breach of implied warranty claim (Count V), and the negligent misrepresentation claim (Count VII).
A. Strict Liability
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's strict liability claim. Defendant argues that to the extent this claim is based on a design defect or failure to warn theory, it is duplicative and should be dismissed. "Under Kentucky law, a plaintiff can advance both a strict-liability claim and a negligence claim against the manufacturer of a product for injury suffered by that product." Waltenburg v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 33 F.Supp. 3d 818, 836 (W.D. Ky. 2014). "Strict liability typically focuses on the condition of the product while a negligence inquiry examines whether the manufacturer exercised the proper degree of care to protect against foreseeable dangers when manufacturing the product for the consumer." Prather v. Abbott Laboratories, 960 F.Supp.2d 700, 712 (W.D. Ky. 2013)(citing Ostendorf v. Clark Equip. Co., 122 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Ky. 2003)). Examining Plaintiff's complaint, it does not appear at this time that these claims are duplicative, and therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
To the extent the strict liability claim is based on a manufacturing defect, Defendant moves to dismiss the manufacturing defect claim arguing that Plaintiff failed to allege any specific manufacturing defect that occurred with her Mirena product. See Bosch v. Bayer Healthcare Pharms. Inc., 13 F.Supp. 3d 730, 744 (W.D. Ky. 2014). Plaintiff represents that she is not making a manufacturing defect claim. Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss the manufacturing defect claim is moot.
B. Implied Warranty Claim
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's breach of implied warranty cause of action fails as a matter of law because privity of contract is an essential element to breach of warranty claims. Pruitt v. Genie Indus., Inc., 2013 WL 139701, *3 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 10, 2013). Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has not - and cannot - allege that she purchased Mirena directly from Bayer. In fact, Plaintiff in her complaint admits that Mirena was inserted by a healthcare practitioner during an office visit. Plaintiff failed to respond to ...