Multidistrict Litigation: When Lawsuits Should Become Part of an MDL?

In today’s legal system, federal courts are inundated with a growing number of lawsuits involving similar claims. Managing these cases individually can be time-consuming and inefficient. Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a legal process designed to manage these cases effectively. MDLs help streamline complex civil litigation by combining related lawsuits into a single district court for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

MDLs have become a significant part of the judicial process. As of recent reports, they account for more than 50% of pending federal civil cases. With the increasing complexity of litigation, understanding MDLs is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants.

What Is Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)?

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidates similar civil actions filed in different federal districts into one court for pretrial management. This process was established by 28 U.S.C § 1407 in 1968. The goal is to streamline cases that involve common questions of fact, reduce duplication, and enhance judicial efficiency.

MDLs address the challenges posed by complex civil litigation. Without MDLs, courts would have to handle similar cases individually, leading to inconsistent rulings and wasted resources. MDLs ensure uniformity and reduce the burden on the judicial system by consolidating these cases.

Key benefits:

MDLs are widely used in cases involving defective products, pharmaceuticals, environmental disasters, and antitrust violations.

How Multidistrict Litigation Works

Multidistrict litigation simplifies the process of handling numerous similar lawsuits filed across different courts. Here’s a closer look at how the process works and who plays a role in it.

Role of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) oversees the creation and management of MDLs. This panel consists of seven federal judges appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The JPML meets periodically to consider motions for consolidation.

Criteria for Consolidation

The JPML evaluates cases based on three main criteria:

If these criteria are met, the JPML will approve consolidation to simplify the legal process and promote fairness.

Steps in the MDL Process:

1. Filing a Motion for Consolidation: Attorneys representing plaintiffs file a motion with the JPML requesting that similar cases be consolidated. This motion outlines the similarities among the cases and the potential benefits of consolidation.
2. JPML Hearing: The JPML reviews the motion and holds hearings, during which both sides can present arguments for or against consolidation. After careful consideration, the JPML decides whether consolidation is appropriate.
3. Transfer to a Transferee Court: If the JPML approves the motion, the cases are transferred to a designated transferee district court. This court is selected based on factors like the location of key evidence, witnesses, or the experience of the judge.
4. Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings: The transferee court manages all pretrial activities, including discovery, motions, and conducting pretrial depositions. This phase ensures that all cases benefit from shared evidence, expert testimony, and coordinated legal strategies, reducing redundancy and inconsistency.
5. Representative Case Evaluations: Instead of trying every case individually, the court may select a few sample cases that are representative of the broader group. These cases are evaluated to test legal arguments, evidence, and potential outcomes. The results guide settlement discussions and future litigation strategies.
6. Settlement or Remand: Many MDLs are resolved through settlements negotiated during pretrial proceedings. These settlements often depend on the results of the representative case evaluations. If a settlement isn’t reached, the remaining cases are remanded to their original courts for individual trials.

Role of Lead Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

In an MDL, the judge appoints lead plaintiffs’ attorneys to manage the litigation on behalf of all plaintiffs. These attorneys play a crucial role by:

• Coordinating Discovery: Overseeing the collection and sharing of evidence.
• Filing Motions: Submitting legal arguments and motions on behalf of the group.
• Negotiating Settlements: Engaging in settlement discussions with defendants.
• Strategic Decision-Making: Developing the overall strategy for the litigation to ensure consistency and fairness for all plaintiffs.

The lead attorneys act as representatives, ensuring that the interests of every plaintiff are considered and that the legal process runs efficiently.

MDL vs. Class Action Lawsuits

MDLs and class actions both involve multiple plaintiffs, but they differ in structure and procedure. In an MDL, each case remains separate, allowing plaintiffs to pursue individual outcomes. In a class action, all plaintiffs are bound by the collective result unless they opt out.

Key differences:

Aspect	MDL	Class Action
Case Filing	Multiple individual lawsuits combined	Single lawsuit filed on behalf of a group
Legal Representation	Individual attorneys for each plaintiff	One law firm for the entire class
Injury Claims	Individualized claims and damages	Uniform claims for all plaintiffs
Settlement Distribution	Based on individual circumstances	Equal distribution among all class members
Trial Process	Cases may return to original courts	Single trial resolves all claims

How MDLs Differ from Traditional Lawsuits

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) offers a strategic approach to handling large numbers of similar cases. While traditional lawsuits follow a straightforward path in a single court, MDLs are designed to manage complexity, streamline processes, and ensure efficiency. Here are the key ways MDLs stand out from individual lawsuits:

In a traditional lawsuit, each case proceeds independently in the court where it was filed. This can lead to repetitive processes, such as identical discovery requests and depositions happening in multiple courts.

In an MDL, similar cases are consolidated into one transferee district court for consolidated pretrial proceedings. This means all discovery, motions, and other pretrial activities happen once, under one judge. The result? Less duplication, more efficiency.

Example: In the 3M Combat Arms Earplug MDL, over 257,000 cases were consolidated. Instead of repeating the same depositions and evidence gathering, these steps happened collectively, saving time and resources.

In traditional lawsuits, different judges across different courts might handle similar cases. This can lead to inconsistent rulings, especially on pretrial motions or discovery disputes.

In an MDL, a single judge oversees all pretrial matters. This centralized management ensures consistency in rulings and procedures. The judge in the transferee court handles everything from conducting pretrial depositions to deciding on motions. This approach minimizes conflicts and helps parties understand what to expect.

Benefit: Plaintiffs and defendants know they are working within a consistent framework, which promotes fairness and predictability.

Traditional lawsuits often move at a snail’s pace. When similar cases are scattered across different courts, delays are common due to overlapping schedules and repetitive tasks.

MDLs fast-track pretrial processes. By handling discovery, depositions, and motions collectively, MDLs reduce bottlenecks and move cases toward resolution faster. While MDLs can still take years, they are generally more efficient than managing each case individually.

Example: In the BP Oil Spill MDL, consolidating over 130,000 claims helped resolve cases more efficiently than if each claim had been processed separately.

In a traditional lawsuit, a single trial decides the outcome for that case. In MDLs, the court uses bellwether trials—a few selected cases that go to trial first. These trials serve as test cases to gauge potential outcomes for the broader group.

This help both sides understand the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments. If the results favor plaintiffs, defendants may be more likely to settle. If the results favor defendants, plaintiffs may reconsider their approach.

Example: In the pelvic mesh MDL, bellwether trials helped establish settlement ranges for thousands of injured women.

Traditional lawsuits can be expensive. Each case requires its own discovery, expert witnesses, and legal fees. This can be financially draining, especially for plaintiffs facing large corporations.

MDLs allow plaintiffs to share costs. Discovery, expert reports, and depositions happen once for all cases. This pooled approach makes litigation more affordable and levels the playing field for plaintiffs.

Benefit: Sharing costs helps plaintiffs pursue justice without the financial burden of duplicative litigation.

In traditional lawsuits, plaintiffs must see their cases through to trial or settle individually. MDLs offer more flexibility. Many cases are resolved through global settlements, where defendants offer compensation to the entire group.

However, if a settlement isn’t reached, individual cases can still return to their original courts for trial. This dual approach gives plaintiffs the best of both worlds: the efficiency of collective action and the option for individual resolution if needed.

Typical Cases Handled in MDL

Here are the most common types of cases handled in MDLs, with notable examples for each one.

Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Cases

Notable Cases:

Vioxx Litigation MDL (2005 – 2010)

• Number of Cases: Around 50,000
• Details: Plaintiffs claimed that Merck’s painkiller, Vioxx, increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The MDL was consolidated in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and Merck settled for $4.85 billion in 2007.

Product Liability Cases

Product liability cases involve claims that defective products caused injuries or damages. These cases often include consumer products, automobiles, or industrial equipment.

Notable Cases:

Roundup Weed Killer MDL (2016 – Present)

• Number of Cases: Over 125,000
• Details: Plaintiffs claimed that exposure to Roundup, a weed killer produced by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California. In 2020, Bayer agreed to a $10.9 billion settlement to resolve the claims.

Environmental and Disaster Cases

Notable Cases:

Volkswagen Emissions MDL (2015 – 2018)

• Number of Vehicles Affected: 500,000 in the U.S.
• Details: Volkswagen was found to have installed software to cheat emissions tests in diesel vehicles. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California. Volkswagen paid over $25 billion in fines, settlements, and buybacks.

Antitrust and Business Practices Cases

Notable Cases:

Opioid Litigation MDL (2017 – Present)

• Number of Cases: Over 3,000
• Details: Municipalities, states, and individuals sued opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies for their role in the opioid epidemic. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio. In 2022, settlements reached over $50 billion.

Consumer Fraud Cases

Notable Cases:

Equifax Data Breach MDL (2017 – 2020)

• Number of Affected Individuals: 147 million
• Details: A massive data breach compromised the personal information of millions of Americans. The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Georgia. Equifax agreed to a $700 million settlement.

Benefits of Multidistrict Litigation

Here are the key advantages that make MDLs essential for handling complex civil litigation:

Increased Efficiency

MDLs streamline litigation by consolidating pretrial processes for similar cases. Instead of handling discovery, depositions, and motions individually in multiple courts, these steps are conducted once in the transferee district court. This reduces unnecessary repetition and speeds up the process. Such pretrial proceedings allow all parties to avoid delays caused by duplicative tasks.

Consistency in Legal Decisions

When multiple lawsuits are filed in different courts, inconsistent rulings are a risk. In an MDL, a single judge manages such pretrial proceedings, ensuring uniform decisions on motions, discovery disputes, and legal interpretations. This promotes fairness and predictability.

Plaintiffs and defendants can better understand how their cases might proceed, reducing uncertainty and fostering more productive negotiations.

Cost Savings for Plaintiffs

Litigation can be expensive, especially when facing well-funded defendants. In traditional lawsuits, each plaintiff bears the full cost of discovery, expert witnesses, and legal fees. MDLs allow plaintiffs to share these costs, making it more affordable to pursue justice.

Faster Resolution

MDLs expedite the handling of pending federal civil cases. Consolidating pretrial activities reduces delays caused by repetitive tasks. Although MDLs can take time, they generally resolve faster than managing each case separately.

Bellwether Trials Guide Settlements

Bellwether trials are representative cases chosen to go to trial first in an MDL. These trials provide insights into potential outcomes and help both sides gauge the strength of their cases. This often encourages settlements.

If it favor plaintiffs, defendants may offer fair settlements to avoid further litigation. If defendants prevail, plaintiffs may reconsider their expectations or strategies.

Reduced Burden on Federal Courts

Managing thousands of similar lawsuits can overwhelm the judicial system. MDLs consolidate these cases into one single district court, freeing other courts to handle different matters. This improves overall efficiency and reduces backlogs. By centralizing cases, MDLs help the judicial system allocate resources more effectively.

Flexibility in Case Resolution

Unlike class actions, where plaintiffs are bound by collective outcomes, MDLs maintain the individuality of each lawsuit. Plaintiffs can accept a settlement or continue to trial if they believe they can achieve a better outcome. This flexibility allows plaintiffs to pursue justice according to their unique circumstances while still benefiting from collective pretrial proceedings.

Leveling the Playing Field

MDLs enable plaintiffs to combine resources and strategies when suing large corporations. This collective approach gives them access to top attorneys, expert witnesses, and shared evidence, balancing the scales against well-funded defendants.

Encourages Global Settlements

MDLs often lead to global settlements, where defendants offer compensation to resolve a large group of claims. This approach is more efficient than negotiating individual settlements and provides closure for all parties involved. Global settlements save time, reduce litigation costs, and offer timely compensation to plaintiffs.

Simplified Pretrial Process

MDLs simplify the litigation process by centralizing pretrial activities. The transferee court handles everything from discovery to pretrial motions, making the process more organized and manageable. This approach ensures adherence to civil procedure guidelines, creating a clear framework for all parties involved.

Adherence to Federal Law

MDLs are governed by federal law, which ensures consistent application of legal principles across all cases involved. This uniformity is particularly beneficial in cases that span multiple jurisdictions, where state laws may vary

Risks and Challenges of MDL

Here are the primary risks and challenges associated with MDLs.

Loss of Individual Control

In an MDL, cases are consolidated for consolidated pretrial proceedings under one judge. This centralization means that individual plaintiffs have less direct control over the strategic decisions in their case. Instead, lead attorneys manage discovery, motions, and negotiations on behalf of the entire group.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Settlement Pressure

In MDLs, the sheer volume of cases often leads to significant pressure to settle. Defendants may offer a global settlement to resolve all claims, and plaintiffs may feel compelled to accept it to avoid the uncertainty of trial.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Lengthy Litigation Process

Although MDLs aim to increase efficiency, they can still take a long time to resolve. Consolidating multiple lawsuits, coordinating discovery, and conducting bellwether trials can add years to the pretrial phase.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Unequal Compensation

MDLs involve plaintiffs with varying degrees of harm and damages. However, settlements are often structured to distribute compensation in broad categories, which may not account for individual differences.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Complexity and Coordination Issues

MDLs involve coordinating hundreds or thousands of cases, often with plaintiffs from different jurisdictions. This level of complexity can create logistical challenges and inefficiencies.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Judicial Discretion and Bias

In an MDL, a single judge in the transferee court makes key decisions that impact all plaintiffs. While judges are expected to be impartial, their rulings on civil procedure or evidence can shape the direction of the entire MDL.

Why It’s a Challenge:

Inconsistent Outcomes After Remand

If cases do not settle during the MDL process, they are remanded to their original courts for trial. This can lead to inconsistent outcomes, as different judges and juries may reach different conclusions.

Why It’s a Challenge:

The MDL Settlement Process

In MDL, settlements are reached through strategic negotiations typically after bellwether trials provide insight into potential outcomes. Around 95% of plaintiffs must agree for settlements to proceed. Mediators often facilitate these discussions, aiming to resolve thousands of cases efficiently and avoid prolonged, costly trials.

Compensation in MDLs varies significantly, ranging from $5,000 to over $1 million per plaintiff. Key factors influencing payouts include injury severity, documented medical costs, lost wages, and strength of evidence. A tiered or matrix system often categorizes plaintiffs, ensuring fair distribution based on individual damages and economic impact.

Settlement funds are distributed after claims administrators review each case. Attorney fees, typically 25% to 33%, are deducted before payouts. Distribution can take 6 to 12 months or longer, depending on the number of plaintiffs and complexity of claims. Efficient distribution ensures timely compensation and closure.

Is Multidistrict Litigation Right for You?

Choosing between multidistrict litigation and filing your own lawsuit is a big decision. So, how do you know if MDL is the right fit for you? If you’re dealing with an issue that’s affected a lot of people, like a defective product or a harmful medication, MDL can be a smart move. You’ll share resources, legal strategies, and expenses with other plaintiffs. This approach can speed things up, make the process more affordable, and increase the pressure on defendants to settle fairly.

MDLs are all about efficiency. Instead of repeating the same steps, like discovery and depositions, over and over, everything is streamlined in one court. If your situation is similar to others and your damages aren’t wildly different, MDL helps you get justice without feeling like you’re fighting a giant all alone. Plus, with the collective power of many voices, there’s a better chance of a quicker resolution.

But sometimes, going it alone makes more sense. If your case is unique or your damages are significant, an individual lawsuit might give you more control and potentially higher compensation. This route lets your case stand out on its own, rather than being one of many. Talk to an attorney who can walk you through your options and help you figure out whether joining an MDL or filing individually is the right choice for you.

Multi District Litigation FAQs

How Long Does MDL Typically Take?

The timeline for MDL varies depending on the complexity and number of cases. On average, an MDL can take anywhere from 2 to 5 years from consolidation to resolution. Factors like discovery, bellwether trials, and settlement negotiations all influence how long the process takes.

Do I Lose Control of My Case in MDL?

You don’t completely lose control, but your case is handled collectively during pretrial proceedings. Lead attorneys make key decisions for efficiency. However, you still have the option to accept or reject settlements. If the MDL doesn’t resolve your case, it returns to your original court for trial.

What Happens If My Case Does Not Settle in MDL?

If your case doesn’t settle during the MDL process, it gets remanded to the original court for trial. This means you can pursue an individual lawsuit. The work done during the MDL—like discovery and depositions—will still benefit your case, making the trial process smoother.

Is an MDL a Mass Tort?

Yes, an MDL is a type of mass tort. Mass torts involve multiple plaintiffs with similar claims against a defendant. In an MDL, these cases are consolidated for pretrial proceedings to improve efficiency. Unlike class actions, each case in an MDL remains separate and unique.

Conclusion

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is designed to efficiently manage large numbers of lawsuits that share common issues. It offers key benefits like reducing repetitive work, ensuring consistent pretrial rulings, and making litigation more affordable through shared resources. Consolidating cases into one court, MDLs reduce the burden on the legal system and help plaintiffs collectively hold defendants accountable.

However, MDLs also come with challenges. Plaintiffs may have less control over their cases, face pressure to settle, and encounter lengthy timelines. These factors can make the process feel impersonal or slow, especially for those with unique circumstances or significant damages.

Deciding if multidistrict litigation is the right approach depends on the specifics of your case. Consulting an experienced legal professional can help you weigh the benefits and challenges, and determine if joining an MDL or pursuing an individual lawsuit is the best path for achieving justice.