Skip to main content

ParaGard MDL: Master Complaint Proposed For Direct Filing

ParaGard MDL: Master Complaint Proposed For Direct Filing

ParaGard MDL: Master Complaint Proposed For Direct Filing

Introduction

On March 09, Judge Leigh Martin May of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, presiding over all ParaGard IUD injury cases, issued a case management order, asking the plaintiff to file a “Master Complaint” this month, which will allow the direct filing of future claims through a “Short Form Complaint.”

According to the order, the parties are required to meet and prepare an agreed-upon Short Form Complaint, along with a Direct File Order to streamline the process of filing new claims directly in the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiffs are required to file the Master Complaint by today and the defendants are also required to file any responsive pleadings by May 6, 2021.

The process is intended to assist the parties coordinate, categorize and evaluate the claims and will also help avoid costs and delays associated with transferring claims from U.S. District Courts nationwide.

Currently, around 116 complaints are pending in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) and the number of lawsuits seems to be growing, each claiming that the birth control device has a risk of breaking upon removal, causing complications and injuries, including surgeries to remove the broken piece of the device, infertility, and pain.

The MDL docket was formed in December 2020 when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a transfer order confirming the centralization of all ParaGard IUD cases in the Northern District of Georgia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Last month, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter to CooperSurgical, Inc., stating that the manufacturer did not communicate risk information associated with the ParaGard IUD birth control device in a direct-to-consumer video advertisement.

According to the letter, the advertisement contained false or misleading information, and the manufacturer did not submit it to the FDA for review as per the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP). The letter warns that this misleading presentation is particularly concerning from a public health perspective due to the serious and potentially life-threatening risks associated with the device, such as those contained in the WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of ParaGard’s PI (prescriber information).

Comments

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

Latest News

Baltimore Wins $266M in Opioid Case Against Drug Distributors

Categories: Opioids

Baltimore has secured a $266 million victory in its lawsuit against major drug distributors McKesson and Cencora (formerly AmerisourceBergen), accusing them of fueling the…

DOJ Opposes JnJ’s Texas Bankruptcy Move in Talc Lawsuit Cases

Categories: Talcum

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently opposed Johnson & Johnson’s latest attempt to use bankruptcy to resolve tens of thousands of…

First Valsartan Bellwether Trial to Focus on Cancer Lawsuits

Categories: Valsartan

The U.S. District Judge overseeing…

Demand Letter or Medical Record Review?     
Free Trials + 10% Discount!