Thursday, July 9, 2026

Hair Relaxer Leads a Concentrated Day of MDL Intake

Hair Relaxer filings set the pace for the July 8 docket pull, with Hair Relaxer Litigation (MDL 3060) generating 17 new complaints behind Wallace Miller and Singleton Schreiber LLP, while the same concentrated plaintiff-firm pattern kept the rideshare docket moving in Uber Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (MDL 3084), where Cutter Law PC and Chaffin Luhana LLP accounted for most of the 13 new filings. The drug dockets also stayed active: Suboxone Litigation (MDL 3092) added 11 filings led by Cory Watson PC and Peiffer Wolf, and Depo-Provera Litigation (MDL 3140) added 10 more, with MCH Law PLLC and McSweeney Langevin LLC at the front of the day’s intake. Zantac Litigation (MDL 2924) remained a smaller but still visible transfer-in/housekeeping presence with two filings from Keller Postman LLC, a reminder that docket activity there should not be confused with a revived federal bellwether track. The overall picture is less a broad market surge than a handful of mature MDLs continuing to absorb repeat filings through a small group of high-volume firms. See the full filing feed and firm-level breakdowns here.

Abbott Neurostimulator Centralization Bid Opens Proposed MDL 3194

Plaintiffs filed a June 22, 2026 JPML transfer motion seeking coordinated pretrial proceedings for Abbott Laboratories Products Liability Litigation (proposed MDL 3194) in the Central District of California. The motion says the Abbott cases allege injuries from implanted neuromodulation devices and challenge alleged design, warning, manufacturing, warranty, misrepresentation, consumer-protection, and regulatory-review failures. It also says many plaintiffs name the FDA under the Administrative Procedure Act, making the petition a hybrid products-liability and agency-review proceeding rather than a conventional device-only MDL request. For mass-tort firms, the important development is that Abbott now has a manufacturer-specific consolidation petition pending after the JPML’s June 5 order declined an industrywide spinal-device proceeding but centralized Boston Scientific-only claims. If granted, the petition would create a separate track for Abbott discovery while still allowing practical coordination with related SCS litigation in California.

Nevro HFX and Senza Cases Seek Separate Proposed MDL 3195

A second manufacturer-specific petition followed on June 26, 2026, when plaintiffs asked the JPML to centralize Nevro Corporation Products Liability Litigation (proposed MDL 3195) in a California federal venue. The Nevro motion identifies 17 substantially similar federal actions in six jurisdictions, including nine actions that also name the FDA through agency-review claims. Plaintiffs allege injuries tied to Nevro HFX, Senza, and Omnia systems and focus on PMA supplements, remote-control features, device performance specifications, warnings, post-market reporting, and parallel state-law theories. The timing matters because it directly follows the earlier SCS centralization order, giving the Panel a fresh test of whether single-manufacturer petitions can proceed in parallel after industrywide centralization was rejected. A transfer order would put Nevro discovery on its own track while preserving the efficiencies plaintiffs say exist around overlapping science, regulatory history, and California-based witnesses.