MDL Track
MDL 2974
N.D. Ga.
Paragard IUD products liability
3,926 pending
Medical Device · claims that copper IUD arms fractured during removal and caused complications
Defendant
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
MDL / Track
MDL 2974
N.D. Ga.
Judge
Judge Leigh Martin May
Plaintiffs
3,700+ pending
Bellwether / Trial
Settlement Status
Track litigations for free. Save this matter, capture notes, and monitor live signals.
Case overview
The Paragard MDL (No. 2974) before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia has entered its bellwether trial phase, with approximately 3,926 cases pending as of March 2026. Plaintiffs allege the copper IUD's T-shaped arms fracture during removal, leaving embedded fragments that require surgical extraction and cause uterine perforation, organ damage, and infertility. Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical face claims of defective design and failure to warn, with bellwether trials scheduled for March and May 2026.
Causation Theory
Plaintiffs' causation theory centers on the Paragard device's structural vulnerability: the T-shaped arms become brittle during years-long intrauterine dwell time and snap under traction forces applied during standard office removal. A 2015 study in the Open Journal of Clinical & Medical Case Reports documented multiple fracture cases requiring hysteroscopic or laparoscopic retrieval. FDA's MAUDE database has accumulated over 1,600 breakage reports, with more than 700 classified as serious adverse events. The 2024 FDA-approved label (NDA 018680, revised June 2024) added warnings regarding embedment and removal risks.
Case Management Orders
Litigation status
The Paragard MDL (No. 2974) in the Northern District of Georgia remains in active bellwether trial posture under Judge Leigh Martin May. The first bellwether trial commenced January 20, 2026, involving plaintiff Pauline Rickard; two additional trials are scheduled for March and May 2026. Judge May denied Teva's eleventh-hour motion to delay the first trial in a January 12, 2026 order, rejecting the manufacturer's bid for interlocutory appeal of pretrial rulings.
MDL Track
MDL 2974
N.D. Ga.
Paragard IUD products liability
3,926 pending
MDL 2974 Leadership
Plaintiff Leadership
Co-Lead Counsel
Liaison Counsel
Geographic exposure
Paragard remains FDA-approved and prescribed nationwide; no global settlement as of March 2026; SOL dismissal motions granted in multiple states — intake teams must verify state-specific filing deadlines immediately
MDL No. 2974 (In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation) before Judge Leigh Martin May — 3,926 cases pending as of March 2026; first bellwether trial scheduled January 2026, with additional trials March and May 2026
CooperSurgical Paragard manufacturing facility — FDA 2022 inspection found failure to 'implement adequate corrective action and preventive plans' for breakage complaints; 2021 warning letter for advertising violations; 2022 recall for sterility issues
7,000+ FDA adverse event reports for Paragard breakage, 80% deemed 'serious' requiring hospitalization; 2022 analysis shows Paragard breakage rate nearly double other IUDs; FDA approved label change June 2024 adding embedment/perforation guidance
Key defendants
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Core defendant in MDL 2974. Filed motion to dismiss 236 time-barred cases Sept. 2024; actively contesting statute of limitations/repose. Parent Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed July 2023.
CooperSurgical, Inc.
Role: Manufacturer
Co-defendant with Teva. Joined dismissal motion targeting stale claims. Corporate parent The Cooper Companies, Inc. disclosed. Withdrawal of opposition to CTO-58 filed Aug. 2023.
Teva Women's Health, LLC
Role: Manufacturer
Named in master complaint; successor to Teva Women's Health, Inc. (terminated from docket April 2021). Active in bellwether discovery per Oct. 2024 orders.
| Defendant | Role | Intelligence Note |
|---|---|---|
| Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. | Manufacturer | Core defendant in MDL 2974. Filed motion to dismiss 236 time-barred cases Sept. 2024; actively contesting statute of limitations/repose. Parent Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed July 2023. |
| CooperSurgical, Inc. | Manufacturer | Co-defendant with Teva. Joined dismissal motion targeting stale claims. Corporate parent The Cooper Companies, Inc. disclosed. Withdrawal of opposition to CTO-58 filed Aug. 2023. |
| Teva Women's Health, LLC | Manufacturer | Named in master complaint; successor to Teva Women's Health, Inc. (terminated from docket April 2021). Active in bellwether discovery per Oct. 2024 orders. |
Timeline
MDL No. 2974 Formed in N.D. Ga.
JPML consolidated federal Paragard cases into MDL No. 2974 before Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia. Transfer order centralized discovery for claims alleging copper IUD arm breakage during removal.
Judge Brogdon Appointed Mediator
Judge Leigh Martin May appointed retired Judge M. Gino Brogdon Sr. as mediator for the Paragard MDL to facilitate settlement discussions.
First Bellwether Trials Scheduled
Court issued scheduling order setting first bellwether trial for December 1, 2025, and second for February 2, 2026. Order followed statute-of-limitations dismissals narrowing the docket.
Braxton v. Teva Selected First Bellwether
Court selected Braxton v. Teva as the first bellwether case in the Paragard MDL, with trial preparation accelerating ahead of late 2025 and early 2026 trial dates.
CMO Sets Three 2026 Bellwether Trials
Judge May issued case management order establishing bellwether trial schedule: January 20, March 3, and May 11, 2026. Order set Daubert and dispositive motion deadlines for October 2025.
MDL Reaches 3,658 Pending Cases
JPML statistical report showed Paragard MDL grew to 3,658 active cases. New filings continued at approximately 60-70 cases monthly.
Richard v. CooperSurgical First Bellwether Trial Begins
First Paragard bellwether trial commenced in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff alleged 2021 device breakage during removal of IUD implanted in 2012.
Second Bellwether Trial Scheduled
Second bellwether trial scheduled to begin March 3, 2026, per Judge May's case management order. Third trial set for May 11, 2026.
MDL Grows to 3,926 Cases
As of March 2026, Paragard MDL No. 2974 reported 3,926 pending actions, reflecting continued new filings despite approaching bellwether trials.
Statute of limitations
MDL 2974 (In re: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation), Judge Leigh Martin May, N.D. Ga. Defendants' Sept. 12, 2024 motion seeks dismissal of 236 cases across 11 states, arguing accrual at device fracture/removal—not subsequent injury discovery. First bellwether trial reset to Jan. 20, 2026 per sources. Intake must prioritize: (1) exact removal/fracture date over symptom onset; (2) state of filing vs. state of injury. No global settlement per sources; individual case viability increasingly SOL-dependent.
⚠Alabama
2 years from injury
Rule: Accrual tied to removal surgery date per defendants' Sept. 2024 motion; discovery rule disputed
Discovery: Defendants arguing clock starts at fracture/removal, not later discovery of injury
Among 11 states in Sept. 12, 2024 MDL 2974 dismissal motion targeting 236 cases; motion status unclear from sources
⚠Michigan
3 years from injury
Rule: Product liability claims; defendants arguing device fracture constitutes injury triggering accrual
Discovery: Statutory discovery rule exists but actively contested in MDL
Targeted in Sept. 2024 MDL dismissal motion; intake must screen for removal/fracture date
⚠New York
3 years from injury
Rule: Courts apply discovery rule but defendants challenging in MDL 2974
Discovery: Under active litigation; defendants asserting fracture date controls
Included in 236-case dismissal motion; risk of dismissal if filed more than 3 years post-removal/fracture
⚠Texas
2 years from injury
Rule: Product liability accrual at injury occurrence; defendants arguing strict accrual at fracture/removal
Discovery: Defendants pressing removal-date accrual in pending motion
Among 11 states in Sept. 2024 MDL dismissal motion; 2-year window creates elevated urgency
⚠Tennessee
1 year from injury
Rule: Shortest SOL among active MDL states; defendants pressing removal-date accrual
Discovery: Minimal; statutory discovery provision contested
1-year SOL plus inclusion in dismissal motion creates highest intake risk; cases likely time-barred if removal >1 year ago
⚠North Carolina
3 years from injury
Rule: Product liability with discovery rule; defendants arguing fracture date triggers accrual
Discovery: Contested in MDL 2974
Targeted in Sept. 2024 dismissal motion; screen for removal/fracture date
⚠Georgia
2 years from injury
Rule: MDL venue state with active SOL challenges; defendants asserting removal surgery date controls
Discovery: Discovery rule disputed in pending motion
MDL 2974 situs (N.D. Ga., Judge Leigh Martin May); dismissal motion includes Georgia cases
| State | SOL | Rule | Discovery Rule | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ⚠Alabama | 2 years from injury | Accrual tied to removal surgery date per defendants' Sept. 2024 motion; discovery rule disputed | Defendants arguing clock starts at fracture/removal, not later discovery of injury | Among 11 states in Sept. 12, 2024 MDL 2974 dismissal motion targeting 236 cases; motion status unclear from sources |
| ⚠Michigan | 3 years from injury | Product liability claims; defendants arguing device fracture constitutes injury triggering accrual | Statutory discovery rule exists but actively contested in MDL | Targeted in Sept. 2024 MDL dismissal motion; intake must screen for removal/fracture date |
| ⚠New York | 3 years from injury | Courts apply discovery rule but defendants challenging in MDL 2974 | Under active litigation; defendants asserting fracture date controls | Included in 236-case dismissal motion; risk of dismissal if filed more than 3 years post-removal/fracture |
| ⚠Texas | 2 years from injury | Product liability accrual at injury occurrence; defendants arguing strict accrual at fracture/removal | Defendants pressing removal-date accrual in pending motion | Among 11 states in Sept. 2024 MDL dismissal motion; 2-year window creates elevated urgency |
| ⚠Tennessee | 1 year from injury | Shortest SOL among active MDL states; defendants pressing removal-date accrual | Minimal; statutory discovery provision contested | 1-year SOL plus inclusion in dismissal motion creates highest intake risk; cases likely time-barred if removal >1 year ago |
| ⚠North Carolina | 3 years from injury | Product liability with discovery rule; defendants arguing fracture date triggers accrual | Contested in MDL 2974 | Targeted in Sept. 2024 dismissal motion; screen for removal/fracture date |
| ⚠Georgia | 2 years from injury | MDL venue state with active SOL challenges; defendants asserting removal surgery date controls | Discovery rule disputed in pending motion | MDL 2974 situs (N.D. Ga., Judge Leigh Martin May); dismissal motion includes Georgia cases |
Live intelligence
AI litigation brief
Paragard remains active mdl with 18 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
The Paragard MDL (No. 2974) in the Northern District of Georgia remains in active bellwether trial posture under Judge Leigh Martin May. The first bellwether trial commenced January 20, 2026, involving plaintiff Pauline Rickard; two additional trials are scheduled for March and May 2026. Judge May denied Teva's eleventh-hour motion to delay the first trial in a January 12, 2026 order, rejecting the manufacturer's bid for interlocutory appeal of pretrial rulings.
Key developments
Trajectory
Court filings and press coverage are both active in MDL 2974, pointing to sustained litigation pressure rather than a one-off headline cycle. 6 live sources are contributing current context.
Editorial intelligence
MDL 2974 should stay on the lead docket watch because it is the primary consolidation vehicle for Paragard.
Generated Apr 28, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC
18 events detected
Google News (8)
Teva prevails in first U.S. jury trial over Paragard IUD injury claims - Reuters
What Happens if an IUD Breaks? - The Cut
What Happens if an IUD Breaks? - The Cut
Teva can't delay first trial over Paragard IUDs with appeal - Reuters
Teva can't delay first trial over Paragard IUDs with appeal - Reuters
Parker Waichman LLP Files Lawsuit on behalf of Chicago Resident in the Paragard MDL Alleging Injuries Caused by Breakage of the Copper IUD - PR Newswire
Parker Waichman LLP Files Lawsuit on behalf of Chicago Resident in the Paragard MDL Alleging Injuries Caused by Breakage of the Copper IUD - prnewswire.com
Paragard IUD lawsuit: Do you qualify to file a copper IUD claim? - Top Class Actions
No recent PubMed signals. Monitoring is active — this section updates automatically.
No recent FDA signals. Monitoring is active — this section updates automatically.
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket entry from GAND: COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Marlene Aramburo. (Filing fee $405, receipt number AGANDC-15187127) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jkb) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket entry from NJD: COMPLAINT against COOPERSURGICAL, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL R & D, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC, TEVA WOMEN'S HEALTH, INC. D/B/A TEVA WOMEN'S HEALTH, LLC, TEVA WOMEN'S HEALTH, LLC, THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC. ( Filing and Admin fee $ 405 receipt number ANJDC-17315776) with JURY DEMAND, filed by
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket filed in GAND: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, a group of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, manufactured and distributed a contraceptive device known as Paragard, which was defective and caused harm upon removal. The plaintiffs claim that the device broke during the removal process, leading t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket entry from GAND: COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Marisol Hakmon. (Filing fee $405, receipt number AGANDC-15135173) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (fbj) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket filed in GAND: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, a group of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, manufactured and distributed a contraceptive device known as Paragard, which was defective and caused harm upon removal. The plaintiffs claim that the device broke during the removal process, leading t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket entry from GAND: COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Jessica Mazelon. (Filing fee $405, receipt number AGANDC-15130489) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jkb) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket filed in GAND: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, a group of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, manufactured and distributed a contraceptive device known as Paragard, which was defective and caused harm upon removal. The plaintiffs claim that the device broke during the removal process, leading t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket filed in GAND: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, a group of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, manufactured and distributed a contraceptive device known as Paragard, which was defective and caused harm upon removal. The plaintiffs claim that the device broke during the removal process, leading t
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket entry from GAND: COMPLAINT with Jury Demand filed by Renee Bibby. (Filing fee $405, receipt number AGANDC-15129583) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jkb) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes the C
Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation
PACER docket filed in GAND: The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, a group of pharmaceutical and medical device companies, manufactured and distributed a contraceptive device known as Paragard, which was defective and caused harm upon removal. The plaintiffs claim that the device broke during the removal process, leading t
Audit normalization notes
Workbench
Sign in to save litigations, capture notes, and monitor live signals. Sign in for unlimited.
LexGenius Ranking
87Score
Court, news, and regulatory activity are elevated
Monitoring
Live
monitoring
Last: Apr 28, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC
Next: 44:29
Source Monitoring
PACER
PACER
Google News
MAUDE
PubMed
Event feed
18
events detected
AI Brief
Paragard remains active mdl with 18 current signals in the accepted feed.
Overview
The Paragard MDL (No. 2974) in the Northern District of Georgia remains in active bellwether trial posture under Judge Leigh Martin May. The first bellwether trial commenced January 20, 2026, involving plaintiff Pauline Rickard; two additional trials are scheduled for March and May 2026. Judge May denied Teva's eleventh-hour motion to delay the first trial in a January 12, 2026 order, rejecting the manufacturer's bid for interlocutory appeal of pretrial rulings.
Key developments
PACER court filing on Apr 23: Paragard IUD Products Liability Litigation. ‖ Reuters news on Feb 4: Teva prevails in first U.S. jury trial over Paragard IUD injury claims - Reuters.
Generated Apr 28, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC
Tracked MDLs
MDL 2974
N.D. Ga.
Paragard IUD products liability