United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER AND REASONS
L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Allergan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
Sheridan Allo's complaint. For the reasons that follow,
the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
products-liability action arises from injuries Sheridan Allo
says she suffered when an Allergan-manufactured breast
implant partially collapsed.
manufactured a breast implant product called the
“Natrelle Style 410 FX.” Allo had two of them
implanted following a bilateral mastectomy. Three years
later, Allo saw her doctor, complaining of pain in her right
breast. An MRI revealed that the right implant showed signs
of rupture. One month later, Allo had both implants removed.
Her doctor examined them and concluded that the right one had
partially collapsed. This lawsuit followed.
sues Allergan under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La.
Rev. Stat. §§ 9:2800.51 - 9:2800.60, and the
Louisiana Civil Code's redhibition articles, La. Civ.
Code arts. 2520, 2545. She says Allergan is liable because
its implants (1) were unreasonably dangerous in construction
or composition, (2) lacked an adequate warning, (3) violated
an express warranty, and (4) suffered from redhibitory
Allergan moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending
that Allo's claims are expressly preempted and
complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A party may move for dismissal of a
complaint that fails this requirement. See
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such motions are rarely granted
because they are viewed with disfavor. Leal v.
McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir.
considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court
“accept[s] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[s]
all facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Thompson v. City of Waco, Tex.,
764 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Doe ex rel.
Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675
F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). Conclusory
allegations are not well pleaded and, consequently, are not
accepted as true. See Thompson, 764 F.3d at 502-03
(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “‘a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603
(5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). A
claim is facially plausible if it contains “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.
complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does
not need detailed factual allegations[.]” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But it must
contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will
not do.” Id. at 555. Ultimately, the
Court's task is “to determine whether the plaintiff
stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to
evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success.”
Thompson, 764 F.3d at 503 (citation omitted).
turning to the merits, the Court considers a procedural
objection. Allo says the Court should convert the motion into
one for summary judgment because Allergan invokes material
outside the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).