IN RE: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DUPIXENT (DUPILUMAB)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3180
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the Southern District of California Mun, Southern District
of Florida Fraioli, and Northern District of Georgia Nalls actions listed on Schedule A move under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Georgia or, in the
alternative, the District of New Jersey or the Northern District of Illinois. Responding plaintiffs
in six other actions listed on Schedule A support centralization in the Northern District of Georgia.
Plaintiffs in five of those actions further support movants’ requested alternative transferee districts.
Defendants Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Regeneron), Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Sanofi), and
Genzyme Corporation support centralization in the Southern District of New York, or,
alternatively, in the Southern District of Florida or the Middle District of Florida.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed
on Schedule A involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the District of New
Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Most plaintiffs used the prescription biologic medication Dupixent,
which is commonly prescribed to treat atopic dermatitis,1 and were later diagnosed with Cutaneous
T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL). Other plaintiffs are the spouses or survivors of Dupixent users who
were diagnosed with CTCL. Plaintiffs each allege that Dupixent caused them, their spouse, or the
decedent to develop CTCL (or that Dupixent accelerated a preexisting CTCL). The parties agree
that plaintiffs’ allegations will raise common questions of fact, such as (1) whether the scientific
literature shows a causal link between Dupixent use and CTCL development; (2) if such a link
exists, when the defendants should have learned about it; and (3) whether defendants provided
adequate warnings about Dupixent’s risks. With fifteen actions and seven potential tag-along
actions pending across twelve districts, centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and conserve judicial resources.
Defendants ask us to limit the centralized proceedings to actions alleging CTCL as the
 Judge Karen K. Caldwell and Judge Madeline Cox Arleo took no part in the decision of this
matter.
1 Atopic dermatitis is commonly known as eczema.
Case MDL No. 3180 Document 47 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 4

-2-
injury, not other lymphomas or malignancies. Movants agree that this MDL should not include
claims related to B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, or other diseases that are not T-cell
lymphomas. But they oppose limiting the MDL’s scope to CTCL because they allege the scientific
literature links Dupixent use to non-cutaneous T-cell lymphomas, including peripheral T-cell
lymphoma and anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Movants argue that the T-cell lymphoma subtypes
are sufficiently similar that expert testimony and Rule 702 motions likely will overlap.
At this stage, we need not rule on whether cases involving T-cell lymphomas other than
CTCL belong in this MDL. While the complaints in some of the actions cite case reports or
scientific literature documenting angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma and peripheral T-cell
lymphoma following Dupixent use, none of the plaintiffs in the actions before us allege that they
have or had a T-cell lymphoma other than CTCL or one of its subtypes. We can address the future
expansion of the MDL beyond cases involving CTCL through the conditional transfer process.
See Panel Rule 7.1.
The District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Sanofi’s
principal place of business is in the District of New Jersey, and Regeneron, which is headquartered
in nearby Tarrytown, New York, has corporate offices in the District of New Jersey. Relevant
witnesses and evidence are thus likely to be in or near the District of New Jersey, which is also
easily accessible for the parties and witnesses in this nationwide litigation. We assign the litigation
to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and capacity to
preside over this litigation. We are confident that Judge Quraishi will steer this matter on an
efficient and prudent course.
IT is THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Matthew F. Kennelly
Acting Chair
David C. Norton Dale A. Kimball
M. Casey Rodgers
Case MDL No. 3180 Document 47 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 4

IN RE: DUPIXENT (DUPILUMAB)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3180
SCHEDULE A
Middle District of Alabama
WRIGHT−JENKINS v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−00087
Central District of California
BUNDY v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:26−00569
Eastern District of California
BELL, ET AL. v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−00320
Southern District of California
MUN v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:26−00127
Middle District of Florida
DURKIN v. SANOFI−AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:26−00231
Southern District of Florida
FRAIOLI v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:26−20636
Northern District of Georgia
NALLS v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−07342
STREET, ET AL. v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:26−00493
LONG, ET AL. v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:26−00635
SEALS v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:26−00813
Case MDL No. 3180 Document 47 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 4

-A2-
Northern District of Illinois
WALSH v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:25−15265
District of New Jersey
PHILLIPS v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:25−18162
District of Nevada
LUCHSINGER, ET AL. v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−00338
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
BOGGS, ET AL. v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−00763
Middle District of Tennessee
RICHARDSON v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:25−01125
Case MDL No. 3180 Document 47 Filed 06/04/26 Page 4 of 4