Friday, July 3, 2026

Single-Firm Intake Drives 155 New Filings Across 26 Active Dockets

We tracked 155 new filings yesterday across 26 active dockets, with single-firm intake again dominating the busiest litigations. Cutter Law PC drove the Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL 3084) with 16 of its 37 new suits; Krentsel & Guzman LLP filed all 30 complaints in the Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation (MDL 2873); and McSweeney Langevin LLC led the 22 new meningioma claims in the Depo-Provera Products Liability Litigation (MDL 3140). The day's clearest marker came in AFFF: the JPML's June 1 report puts the firefighting-foam docket at 15,240 pending actions out of 19,815 filed, yet nearly a year after the October 2025 kidney-cancer bellwether was vacated, Judge Richard Gergel's personal-injury track in South Carolina still has no reset trial date on the calendar. See the full filing feed and firm-level breakdowns here.

LDS Church Moved To Dismiss Arkansas Abuse Suit June 30

Defendants in Jane Doe v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on June 30, 2026, in the Eastern District of Arkansas, with a supporting brief attacking the sufficiency of the plaintiff's sexual-abuse allegations. The filing date matters because the church's legal move predates July 2 reports about a separate Little Rock church, Immanuel Baptist Church, resolving an unrelated sexual-abuse civil case. The dismissal bid argues the complaint does not plead a legally viable basis for institutional liability and seeks to end the Arkansas case before discovery. Plaintiff-side firms tracking faith-organization abuse claims should treat the June 30 docket activity as the operative procedural event, not the July 2 local-news resolution involving a different church.

Trade Groups Challenge New Mexico PFAS Labeling Law

Trade groups sued to block New Mexico's PFAS product-labeling law, according to a July 2 Bloomberg Law News signal, opening a new regulatory fight over disclosure obligations for products containing forever chemicals. The challenge matters for PFAS Litigation because labeling mandates can expand consumer-facing warnings, create new compliance records, and sharpen exposure theories beyond drinking-water contamination. Defense groups are likely to frame the law as an overbroad state disclosure regime, while plaintiffs can use the dispute to track which industries resist product-level PFAS transparency. The case gives mass-tort firms another signal that PFAS liability is moving from environmental remediation into consumer-product labeling and failure-to-warn terrain.