Contact Marin & Murphy
Marin & Murphy is licensed in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and works with lawyers licensed across the country.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in North Carolina; a matter there would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed in that state.
Dupixent — CTCL Litigation
The Dupixent Litigation, Explained
Federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180, most cases are in their earliest stages, and no settlement exists. Here is what is publicly known.
ACTIVE LITIGATION — NO SETTLEMENT. MDL 3180 underway · deadlines vary by state.
Marin & Murphy is not licensed in North Carolina; details below.
Partners
Stefanie A. Murphy & Matthew T. Marin
Super Lawyers® honorees · members of the American Association for Justice · concentrating in personal injury and mass-tort litigation.
No settlement has been reached in the Dupixent litigation, and most cases are in their earliest stages. Every case must be proven on its own facts. Whether any patient has a claim depends on the facts and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in North Carolina; details below.
In North Carolina, as in every state, plaintiffs allege an association between Dupixent (dupilumab) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma; no court has found Dupixent causes CTCL, and no settlement exists. Whether any individual has a claim depends on their medical records and the law of their state. The information below covers the litigation itself.
Where the Dupixent CTCL Litigation Stands
Dupixent (dupilumab), a Sanofi and Regeneron prescription biologic prescribed to patients in North Carolina and nationwide, has been FDA-approved since March 2017 and now carries nine indications, including atopic dermatitis, asthma, and COPD. The order that matters for North Carolina filings came in June 2026: the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the pending federal cases as MDL 3180 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. The complaints in the consolidated Dupixent lawsuit allege that the drug is associated with an increased risk of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and that the manufacturers failed to warn patients and doctors. At least 36 identified member cases were on the MDL docket — the same proceeding a case from North Carolina would join — as of September 15, 2026; the MDL 3180 tracker keeps the current count and its method. For North Carolina claimants as for all others, no court has ruled on the merits and no settlement exists.
What the Filings Claim — and What Remains Unproven
The allegation — in North Carolina as anywhere else — is an association, not an adjudicated fact. Published studies report a statistical association between dupilumab and CTCL — an association the study authors themselves note does not establish causation — and the FDA has identified a potential safety signal for CTCL that it is still evaluating. The Dupixent label dispensed in North Carolina, as everywhere, carries no lymphoma or malignancy warning today. The FDA adverse event reports connected to this question are agency reports, not verified causes, and the courts have decided nothing on the merits — in North Carolina or anywhere else.
North Carolina Residents in the Dupixent MDL: Two Docketed Cases
A North Carolina resident filed Foster v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. directly in the District of New Jersey in May 2026 (No. 3:26-cv-06610, public docket), alleging Dupixent injections between October and December 2025 followed by a mycosis fungoides diagnosis with test results the complaint describes as compatible with Sézary cells; it names Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Genzyme Corporation. North Carolina has a second docketed filing on this track, Mathews (June 2026, alleging injections from January to June 2023). Both are consolidated in MDL 3180. These are allegations from a complaint; no court has ruled on them, and no settlement exists.
Who Is Covered by the Filed Cases?
People in the consolidated cases — a group any qualifying claimant from North Carolina would join — used Dupixent and received a diagnosis of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell subtype during or after use. No minimum duration of Dupixent use is required — in North Carolina or anywhere — and the group includes estate claims, brought under state wrongful-death and survival statutes, for patients who have died. Whether any individual’s circumstances resemble the filed cases is a question of medical records and state law, not of headlines — and for a North Carolina resident, it is a question for an attorney licensed in North Carolina.
North Carolina’s Federal Courts and the Path to MDL 3180
North Carolina is served by three federal district courts: the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina; the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; and the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. A Dupixent CTCL suit filed there does not stand alone: through the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, these cases are centralized as MDL 3180 before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, so a North Carolina case is transferred to the MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings — or, where the MDL court’s case-management orders permit, filed in the District of New Jersey directly. The destination is the same consolidated proceeding either way; a claim from North Carolina stays an individual claim, because an MDL is not a class action.
Filing Deadlines Under North Carolina Law
North Carolina’s general statute of limitations for personal-injury claims is three years under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5), (16). North Carolina applies a discovery rule: a latent-injury claim does not accrue until the bodily harm becomes apparent or ought reasonably to have become apparent. How a limitations period applies to any specific CTCL diagnosis depends on the dates in the medical records, the legal theory pleaded, and North Carolina tolling and accrual doctrine. An attorney licensed in North Carolina can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
A wrongful-death claim gets only two years from death (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-53(4)), brought by the personal representative (§ 28A-18-2).
How Common Is CTCL in North Carolina?
North Carolina is home to about 11 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 estimate). Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma is rare — roughly 8.55 new cases per million person-years (SEER) — which works out to on the order of 95 new CTCL diagnoses across North Carolina in a typical year. Because the disease is so rare, no statistic here answers an individual question; in North Carolina, a single claim turns on medical records read against state law.
About Marin & Murphy Law Firm and North Carolina
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is a personal-injury and mass-tort law firm; its attorneys’ individual admissions are listed at the bottom of this page, and this page is published as litigation information. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in North Carolina. The firm does not accept North Carolina legal matters; inquiries from North Carolina residents are referred to attorneys licensed in North Carolina. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers. An attorney licensed in North Carolina can evaluate whether a claim is timely and how North Carolina law applies to a particular diagnosis.
North Carolina Dupixent Litigation FAQs
Are there Dupixent lawsuits in North Carolina courts?
For North Carolina claimants as for everyone, the federal cases are consolidated in MDL 3180 in the District of New Jersey rather than proceeding separately around the country. A Dupixent CTCL case filed in a North Carolina federal court is subject to transfer into that consolidated proceeding. This page does not track filings outside the federal system.
Who is included in the filed cases?
People in North Carolina and nationwide who used Dupixent and were diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma or a related T-cell lymphoma subtype during or after that use. No minimum duration of use applies; for patients in North Carolina who have died, their estates bring claims under state wrongful-death and survival statutes.
Has any court found that Dupixent causes CTCL?
No. Plaintiffs allege an association. Published studies report a statistical association — one the study authors note does not establish causation — the FDA is still evaluating a potential safety signal, and Dupixent’s label, in North Carolina and every state, currently contains no lymphoma warning.
Is there a Dupixent settlement?
No. There is no settlement and no merits ruling; in North Carolina and everywhere else, the litigation is in its earliest stages. Any figure suggesting otherwise did not come from the docket — in North Carolina or anywhere else.
What is the filing deadline for a North Carolina Dupixent claim?
Filing deadlines come from North Carolina statutes and court doctrine, and more than one rule can bear on when the period begins to run; the section above covers what is settled and what is not. An attorney licensed in North Carolina can evaluate whether a claim is timely.
Does Marin & Murphy Law Firm accept North Carolina cases?
No. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in North Carolina and does not accept North Carolina legal matters; inquiries from North Carolina residents are referred to attorneys licensed in North Carolina.
Nearby states
What Federal Data Shows About Dupixent Use in North Carolina
In North Carolina, Dupixent (dupilumab) is a common prescription for atopic dermatitis and related inflammatory conditions. State-level federal utilization data captures the scale of its use:
Between 2024 and 2025, Medicaid prescriptions reported in North Carolina increased around 29%. These counts reflect Medicaid outpatient reporting alone; prescriptions covered by Medicare or private insurance are not included, so the true number of residents of North Carolina using Dupixent is larger. A small number of privacy-suppressed records are excluded from the totals.
Sources: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, State Drug Utilization Data 2024 and 2025 (accessed August 21, 2026); In re: Dupixent (Dupilumab) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3180, JPML Transfer Order, Schedule A (June 4, 2026). Utilization data reflects prescriptions reported by state Medicaid programs and is not evidence that any individual prescription caused injury.
Sources
- U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Pending MDL Dockets by MDL Number (August 3, 2026) — jpml.uscourts.gov
- MDL 3180 docket records — CourtListener dockets 72288297 (JPML) and 73443394 (D.N.J. 3:26-md-03180), reviewed September 15, 2026.
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52(5), (16) — North Carolina statute of limitations discussed above.
- U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2024 Population Estimates (NST-EST2024), resident population as of July 1, 2024.
- SEER program data: cutaneous T-cell lymphoma incidence ≈8.55 cases per million person-years.
Marin & Murphy Law Firm is not licensed in North Carolina. The firm does not accept North Carolina legal matters; inquiries from North Carolina residents are referred to attorneys licensed in North Carolina. Some matters may be referred to other lawyers.
Attorney admissions: Matthew T. Marin — RI, CT, MA, SC, U.S.D.C. D.R.I. · Stefanie A. Murphy — RI, CT, MA, U.S.D.C. D.R.I./D.Conn./D.Mass.
Attorney Advertising.
Attorney Advertising. This page is for general information and is not legal advice; reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no attorney-client relationship is formed until a written engagement agreement is signed. Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina; the firm’s mass-tort practice is directed from its Charleston, South Carolina office. Responsible attorney: Matthew T. Marin, 997 Morrison Drive, Suite 200, Charleston, SC 29403. Cases may be handled together with co-counsel; whether a claim is accepted is determined after review. No representation is made that the quality of legal services is greater than that of other lawyers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome; every case depends on its own facts.
Where we practice
Marin & Murphy Law Firm attorneys are licensed in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. We are not licensed in North Carolina. The firm does not accept North Carolina legal matters; inquiries from North Carolina residents are referred to attorneys licensed in North Carolina. This page is attorney advertising and is provided for general information; it is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.