Dupixent MDL 3180 Tracker — As of September 15, 2026

Find Out If You Have a Case

Free, confidential review by Attorney Matthew T. Marin. Prefer to talk? Call (888) 348-2735.

Lawsuits consolidated in MDL 3180 (D.N.J.) allege that Dupixent (dupilumab) is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and that the manufacturers failed to warn about it. No court has ruled on these allegations, no settlement exists, and the litigation is in its earliest stages. Published studies report a statistical association — which the study authors themselves note does not establish causation — and the FDA has identified a potential safety signal it is still evaluating; Dupixent’s FDA label does not currently warn about lymphoma. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state.

What Is MDL 3180?

MDL 3180 is the multidistrict litigation that gathers every federal Dupixent lawsuit alleging cutaneous T-cell lymphoma into one court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. It is not a class action: each case remains an individual lawsuit with its own plaintiff and its own records. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created it on June 4, 2026, and assigned it to Judge Quraishi in the District of New Jersey.

How Did the Dupixent MDL Get Created?

The docket tells the story in six dates:

• October 1, 2025 — the first-filed case, Richardson v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is docketed in the Middle District of Tennessee.
• February 13, 2026 — plaintiffs Wanda Nalls, John I. Mun, and Giovanni Fraioli petition the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize 15 actions then pending across 12 federal districts, suggesting the Northern District of Georgia.
• February 27, 2026 — the Panel denies two plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited hearing, keeping its usual schedule. (Worth noting honestly: not every plaintiff request has been granted.)
• March 24, 2026 — defendants Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation respond: they support centralization in the Southern District of New York (alternatively Florida) and ask the Panel to limit the MDL to CTCL cases only.
• May 28, 2026 — the Panel hears oral argument in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
• June 4, 2026 — the Panel issues its transfer order, signed by Judge Matthew F. Kennelly as Acting Chair, transferring 14 actions to the District of New Jersey (the fifteenth was already pending there) and assigning the litigation to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, with the consent of Chief Judge Renee M. Bumb.

The order’s reasoning, briefly: the cases share common factual questions — whether the scientific literature, including the published studies on Dupixent and CTCL, shows a causal link; if so, when the defendants should have learned of it; and whether the warnings were adequate. New Jersey made sense as the venue because Sanofi’s principal place of business is there and Regeneron is headquartered nearby. On scope, B-cell and Hodgkin’s lymphoma cases are excluded by agreement, and the Panel deferred — rather than granted — the question of whether non-CTCL T-cell lymphoma cases belong in the MDL. The defendants’ CTCL-only argument remains live.

How Many Dupixent Lawsuits Are There — and How Did We Count?

At least 36 member actions are part of MDL 3180 as of September 15, 2026. Because no official member-case list is published, we state the method rather than assert a round number. Our firm has obtained and read 34 member-case complaints from the federal court record — the actions on the transfer order’s Schedule A, the noticed tag-alongs, the pre-existing New Jersey case Phillips, and direct District of New Jersey filings, including Lewis (filed August 20, 2026) and Henley (filed August 24, 2026). Two further actions are counted from the docket record rather than from a complaint we have read: Ghosh v. Regeneron (first filed in the District of Maryland July 17, 2026; docketed in the District of New Jersey August 25, 2026) and Hester-Woods v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. (District of New Jersey, filed September 4, 2026). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s MDL Statistics Report of September 1, 2026 reports 35 actions then pending in MDL 3180 and 36 total historically, which reconciles with our count.

Two caveats, stated rather than hidden: public docket coverage is incomplete — some transferred actions do not yet show a separate New Jersey member docket in the public index, and the index holds only dockets someone has retrieved — so 34 is a floor and the true count is likely higher. The Judicial Panel’s monthly pending-docket report is the official anchor; when it publishes a count for MDL 3180, we will quote it here beside our floor.

Wondering whether these cases have anything to do with your own situation? Start with do I qualify — the criteria are narrower than the ad copy circulating elsewhere suggests.

What Are the Earliest-Filed Dupixent Cases?

The ten earliest-filed individual cases, in their original districts, per federal court dockets:

All ten are Schedule A actions from the transfer order; the noticed tag-alongs and the New Jersey direct filings carry later 2026 dates.

What Has Actually Happened on the MDL Docket?

As of the docket’s last filing on September 15, 2026, the MDL docket itself holds 22 entries. Every one of those entries carries a blank entry-level description in the publicly available record, so we count them — we do not guess at what they say. Document-level captions indicate routine early-MDL activity: incoming transfer orders, notices of appearance, and service returns. On June 11, 2026 the court entered Initial Procedure Order No. 1, which we have read in full: it stays defendants’ answer deadlines and formal discovery, tolls the Rule 26–37 discovery clock (not any statute of limitations), and sets an in-person Initial Management Conference for October 1, 2026 in Trenton, with the parties’ joint initial management report due September 10, 2026.

What the available record does not yet show, as of September 15, 2026: no plaintiff-leadership appointments, no trial schedule, and no rulings on the merits. In their joint initial management report filed September 10, 2026, the parties told the court that leadership appointments will be proposed before the October 1 conference, that they jointly propose no consolidated pleadings — no master complaint and no short-form complaint — and that they propose a direct-filing order. The court has not yet ruled on any of it. Most underlying document texts for this docket are not publicly available, so unreported orders cannot be fully excluded — another reason this page carries a date stamp.

What Happens Next in an MDL?

Here the record does set the next two dates: the parties’ joint initial management report is due September 10, 2026, and the Initial Management Conference is scheduled for October 1, 2026. Beyond those, we can describe the usual sequence without predicting this court’s calendar. In a typical products MDL, the court appoints plaintiff leadership, enters case management orders organizing master pleadings and discovery, then reaches the science phases — including motions testing whether the plaintiffs’ causation evidence is admissible — and, if claims survive, bellwether trials. Any of those steps can also end a litigation. When something on this docket actually happens, this page will say so, with the date it happened.

Dupixent MDL 3180: Frequently Asked Questions