M. Patterson v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp, 451 F. App'x 495

Patterson sues Novartis and generic manufacturers alleging osteonecrosis of the jaw from infusions of Zometa/Aredia; complaint says infusions were of “Aredia and/or generic Aredia (pamidronate).”
Massachusetts law governs; district court dismissed for failure to plausibly plead receipt of Aredia manufactured by Novartis and granted judgment on the pleadings.
Only Patterson’s claims against Novartis remain before the court after MDL consolidation and transfers; claims against generics are not at issue here.
Patterson sought discovery and/or amendment to cure pleading defects, which the district court denied; the court also refused to convert the motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion.
The district court held that Patterson failed to allege when/how many infusions she received, or other facts tying her injury to Novartis-manufactured Aredia.
The Sixth Circuit reviews Rule 12(c) judgments de novo, applying Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plausibility of receipt of Novartis Aredia	Patterson pleads ‘Aredia and/or generic Aredia’ and inference favoring Novartis manufacturing.	Complaint plausibly only raises possibility, not fact, that infusions were Novartis-manufactured.	Dismissal affirmed; pleading insufficient to show receipt of Novartis Aredia.
Right to discovery to cure pleading defects	Discovery could reveal exact manufacturer and cure defects.	Twombly/Iqbal foreclose discovery to cure pleading defects at the pleading stage.	No discovery allowed; district court did not err.
Consideration of information outside the pleadings	Medical records suggest Novartis manufacture; should be considered.	Motion not converted to summary judgment; outside documents not to be considered.	District court did not err in not considering outside documents.
Leave to amend the complaint	Patterson should be allowed to amend.	Requests were not sufficiently particular; amendment would be futile after dismissal.	District court did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed.

Iqbal v. Hasty, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (pleading must contain factual content allowing plausible inference of liability)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility pleading standard; mere possibilities insufficient)
Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of Rule 12(c) motions; factual allegations viewed in plaintiff's favor)
Albrecht v. Treon, 617 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards and limits on inferences)
Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Prods., 577 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2009) (extend detailed pleading standards under Twombly/Iqbal)