The MDL judge denied motions for reconsideration from six plaintiffs whose cases were dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with Case Management Orders on Plaintiff Fact Sheets. A show-cause order issued on December 30, 2024, gave plaintiffs 14 days to respond, but none did. Despite multiple warnings, the court found no good cause to reinstate their cases. The judge emphasized that strict compliance is necessary to manage the complex litigation efficiently. While dismissal with prejudice is a last resort, repeated non-compliance in large MDLs will lead to case dismissal to ensure procedural integrity.
The judge in the Paragard litigation has ruled that plaintiffs may proceed with 30(b)(6) depositions, allowing them to question corporate representatives under oath. Defendants sought to block these depositions entirely, but the court denied their request. However, the judge will still review certain defense concerns regarding the scope of questioning. This decision ensures plaintiffs can obtain critical testimony from company representatives while the court considers any remaining limitations on the depositions.
The first Paragard bellwether trial has been postponed to January 12, 2026, with additional trials set for March 3 and May 11, 2026. A new scheduling order outlines deadlines for discovery, expert reports, and trial preparations, including key witness depositions. Meanwhile, the MDL judge dismissed dozens of lawsuits from plaintiffs in multiple states, ruling that the statute of limitations began when Paragard broke, regardless of when women discovered the full extent of their injuries. Despite acknowledging valid fraud claims, the court found fraudulent concealment did not extend the deadline. While this decision narrows the MDL, litigation continues for cases within the applicable statute of limitations.
A federal judge dismissed dozens of Paragard IUD lawsuits, ruling in favor of Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical. Plaintiffs from several states argued that severe injuries, including infertility and permanent damage, occurred long after their devices fractured. However, the court held that the statute of limitations began when the breakage occurred, not when complications became apparent. Despite acknowledging sufficient fraud claims, the judge ruled that fraudulent concealment did not extend the time limits. While this decision limits the MDL, lawsuits filed within the applicable statute of limitations remain active, and litigation over whether manufacturers concealed Paragard’s risks continues.
Thousands of women have filed lawsuits against Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical regarding the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD). Lawsuits allege the copper-based contraceptive resulted in serious injury to patients due to a suspected design flaw that causes it to break into pieces during removal.
Affected patients can suffer from infections, organ damage, internal bleeding, infertility, and even death. These devastating outcomes often result in significant pain and suffering, permanent damage, and further treatment or surgery to correct.
The lawsuits have been consolidated under multi-district litigation (MDL), allowing affected individuals to band together to hold these companies accountable. If you or a loved one was harmed by the Paragard IUD, you may be eligible to join the MDL. Read on to discover if you qualify and how to take the first steps today.
Paragard is a t-shaped, copper IUD placed in the uterus to provide long-term contraception. As it uses copper rather than hormones to prevent pregnancy, Paragard is often suggested as a safer alternative to patients wishing to avoid hormonal birth control. In reality, the Paragard IUD is associated with a number of health risks, which have been linked to thousands of injuries and at least 17 deaths.
The Paragard lawsuit isn’t the first time the device’s safety has been called into question. Certain Paragard lot numbers were recalled in 2014 when tests indicated the affected devices might not be fully sterile. In 2019, the FDA reprimanded CooperSurgical for an ad that made false and misleading claims while neglecting to inform viewers of Paragard’s risks. The IUD was added to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in 2021 after reports of device breakage increased.
Patients injured by the Paragard IUD hope to hold Teva Pharmaceuticals and CooperSurgical accountable for their alleged negligence.
The Paragard IUD lawsuits include the following allegations:
Plaintiffs believe this negligence resulted in the injuries they and many others sustained while using Paragard and during device removal.
Device breakage is the basis of most of the Paragard IUD litigation. To remove the device from a patient’s uterus, a doctor must pull on the removal cord to bring the IUD out of the vaginal canal. Ideally, Paragard should come out in one piece, but it has broken upon removal in a concerning number of cases. When this happens, plastic pieces can become lodged in the uterus, cervix, and vagina, causing severe pain, hemorrhage, infection, and more.
Paragard is also associated with device migration. This can lead to injury when the IUD migrates out of its intended position and into surrounding tissue. In rare cases, it can also result in a life-threatening condition called ectopic pregnancy.
Paragard works by creating a hostile environment that prevents sperm from fertilizing the egg. However, like all IUDs, it is not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. Even a slight migration of the device can reduce its contraceptive abilities, allowing sperm to pass by and fertilize the egg. If the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus (typically in a fallopian tube), it can result in an ectopic pregnancy. This is a serious condition that can cause internal bleeding and death.
The Paragard IUD lawsuit is for any patient who received a Paragard IUD and experienced breakage of the device before or during its removal by a healthcare professional. The Paragard IUD must have been removed 10 years or less after its implantation, and patients must have suffered injuries due to the breakage.
To qualify for the Paragard IUD lawsuit, you must meet several requirements. While every case is different and you should consult with an attorney to discuss your particular case, qualification standards generally include:
Qualifying personal injuries due to the Paragard IUD include:
Other injuries that may qualify you for the lawsuit are:
If you are considering joining the Paragard lawsuit after being injured by your IUD, you may be wondering about the costs of hiring an attorney. The good news is that most lawyers working on the Paragard lawsuit do not require payment upfront.
Rather, they work on a contingency fee basis, which means your attorney is paid a percentage of your compensation only if you win your case. This makes it possible for patients to retain legal counsel despite budget constraints, giving those affected the best chance of securing justice. Your lawyer can help if you have other questions about legal fees and how to pay them.
Called the statute of limitations, factors like the state you live in, when you discovered your injury, and more will define when you must file your claim. An attorney can determine which time limits apply to you and help you compile strong evidence to build a solid case before the deadline.
Paragard IUD attorneys are standing by to speak with you about whether you may qualify for the lawsuit. Fill out the form at the top of the page to speak with a lawyer in the OCA network who will guide you on your journey to justice.
This is an advertisement. OnlyClassActions is not a law firm or referral service, and we do not provide legal advice. OnlyClassActions provides a free service for individuals seeking legal representation, and we do not charge you to be connected with an attorney. We do not recommend or endorse any attorneys that pay to participate. OnlyClassActions utilizes a pool of attorneys in each jurisdiction, and attorneys are selected through a round-robin process without our evaluating your legal situation when selecting which attorney will receive your information. OnlyClassActions makes no representation about the quality of legal services or the qualifications of any attorney participating in our pool. Information you submit will be shared with third-party attorney(s). An attorney-client relationship is not formed when you submit information through the form. Hiring a lawyer is a critical decision and should not be predicated solely on comments, advertisements, or other content found on any website. You are under no obligation to retain a lawyer who contacts you through this service.
Join our newsletter to stay up to date on cases and settlements.
Add Comment