MDL Cases

MDL cases are most closely associated with product liability mass torts involving dangerous drugs, faulty medical devices, toxic chemicals in consumer products, and other product defects causing serious injury. But MDL involves additional areas of the law as well, including antitrust, cybersecurity, employment, intellectual property, and sales practices (consumer fraud).

For pending MDLs in product liability and other categories, click here.

The agency that handles federal MDL is the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The JPML approves (or disapproves) the transfer of cases pending in different district courts around the country to a single district court for coordinated discovery and other pretrial activity. That court, known as the transferee court, then handles all pretrial proceedings for the transferred cases.

When an MDL docket is created and the cases transferred, the JPML appoints a transferee court judge who manages the litigation during the pretrial process. The judge also encourages disposition of the litigation through settlement conferences. Those MDL cases not settled during pretrial are sent back to the transferor courts for disposition by trial or further attempts at settlement.

It is also typical for the transferee judge to schedule a few “bellwether” trials, which are intended to provide an indicator of what the parties might expect in their individual lawsuits. If the plaintiffs prevail in the bellwether trials, then the defendants will likely be motivated to settle the remaining claims before returning the cases to the transferor courts.

Goal of Congress in Creating MDL System
The goal of Congress in creating the MDL system in 1968 was to promote efficiency and economy in similar litigation dispersed throughout the federal courts. By consolidating discovery proceedings and pretrial motions, the parties, as well as the courts, could save time and money.

Plaintiff firms, in particular, stand to benefit from MDL. Such firms, typically small in size, often lack the resources to bring actions on their own, mainly because of the discovery costs involved. But by having a large number of firms sharing the costs of litigation, plaintiffs stand a better chance of prevailing against generally deep-pocket defendants — a fact that can encourage a defendant to settle rather than take its chances at trial against its combined opponents. For this reason, when the JPML hears arguments for and against consolidation in a particular litigation, the defendant will sometimes be in opposition.

But MDL benefits defendants as well. For example, in a mass tort involving an auto defect, the design engineer for defendant auto company would, without MDL, likely need to be deposed for each of the perhaps dozens or more of pending lawsuits. But with MDL, the design engineer would be deposed only once.

MDL also conserves judicial time and resources. Rather than requiring many judges across the country to hear similar pretrial motions and preside over similar discovery disputes, the MDL transferee court judge handles all of it, ensuring consistency in legal rulings.

The JPML is appointed by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and consists of no more than seven members selected from the U.S. district or appellate courts. If the panel determines, by majority vote, that a group of federal civil cases from around the country should be centralized into a master docket for pretrial, it orders the transfer from the transferor courts to the one transferee court. Cases that are filed after the formation of the MDL can later be transferred as well. These are called “tag-along” cases.

How the JPML Decides Which Cases to Consolidate
The JPML, in determining if lawsuits should become part of an MDL, may decide on its own that similar cases should be combined into a multidistrict litigation, or the panel may act on motion by attorneys representing the plaintiffs or defendants. It is usually plaintiff firms that request consolidation.

In making its decision on consolidation, the panel will consider: whether the cases share one or more common facts; whether transferring the cases to one court is convenient for the parties; and whether the transfer promotes efficiency, cost savings, and fairness to those involved, both courts and litigants. The panel may approve consolidation even though the number of cases initially filed may not be that large if it feels tag-along cases are likely to increase dramatically.

For recent JPML rulings on motions to transfer individual cases for consolidated proceedings, click here.

Once an MDL transfer order has been issued by the JPML and the transferee court and presiding judge selected, the judge will typically appoint steering committees. These committees guide plaintiffs’ and defendants’ preparations and legal strategy throughout the proceedings. The plaintiffs’ steering committee will speak to the court on behalf of all plaintiffs to the litigation, who generally come from different parts of the country. It is not unusual for defendants to select their own steering committee, with the court’s approval.

The plaintiffs’ steering committee will usually be headed by a lead counsel who coordinates discovery and participates in settlement negotiations, though each individual party maintains their own private attorney throughout the process.

Mass Torts Outside the JPML Umbrella
Not all litigation that would otherwise qualify as a mass tort obtains consolidation by the JPML. First, mass torts also achieve consolidation under state procedures similar to those at the federal level.

Secondly, the JPML does not rule favorably on all motions to consolidate involving numerous plaintiffs that come before it. A recent example is the panel’s refusal to grant plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate IN RE: Gateway Video Game Addiction Products Liability Litigation (MDL #3168). In spite of the fact that there were 39 cases pending, the panel said that it was “concerned that the scope of this litigation may quickly grow too large, as plaintiffs who played different games on different platforms — in addition to the ‘gateway’ video games at issue in the cases currently pending — file new actions.” It was a real possibility, the panel said, that the litigation would grow to encompass a “large tangle of defendants and products, creating an MDL too unwieldy for any single judge to manage”

It was the potential large number of defendants that was of particular concern to the JPML. In its order denying consolidation, the panel said that “Informal coordination seems a practicable alternative to centralization of these cases.” While there are 39 related actions now pending, the panel said, 29 of them are pending in just two courts, and there is some overlap among plaintiffs’ counsel.

MDLs in Civil Litigation
MDLs have become over the years a major component of civil litigation in the U.S. district courts. According to JPML statistics current as of March 2, 2026, there were 198,480 MDL cases pending (previous month,197,264) in federal district courts around the country, constituting around 50% of total district court pending civil actions. Most of these pending MDL cases consisted of product liability mass torts.

MDL Top 10
The 10 largest MDLs by total cases pending in federal district courts (as of March 2, 2026) all involve product liability issues. Starting with the largest, the MDLs with most cases pending (previous month in parentheses) are as follows:

• J&J talcum powder litigation, 67.1K (67.6K) – MDL #2738
• Davol/C.R. Bard hernia mesh litigation, 23.6K (23.7) – MDL # 2846
• Aqueous film-forming foam litigation, 15.2K (15.2K) – MDL #2873
• Hair relaxer product liability & sales practices, 11.4K (11.2K) – MDL #3060
• Proton-pump inhibitor litigation, 11.3K (11.3K) – MDL #2789
• Bair Hugger air warming devices litigation, 8.5K (8.5K) – MDL #2666
• Cook Medical IVC filters litigation, 6.7K (6.9K) – MDL #2570
• Paraquat product liability litigation,6.5K (6.5K) – MDL #3004
• Paragard IUD product liability litigation, 3.9K (3.9K) – MDL #2974
• Roundup product liability litigation, 3.8K (4.0K) – MDL #2741

For MDL Pending Cases by Category, Click Here

Return to Top