GLP-1 Lawsuit Timeline: How the Federal GI Litigation Reached MDL 3094

February 2024: the GI cases are centralized

On February 2, 2024, the JPML centralized 18 federal actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The panel also noted 37 related actions in 15 districts. The lawsuits shared allegations involving Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Trulicity and Mounjaro and alleged gastroparesis, ileus, intestinal obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, and other gastrointestinal injuries. Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly opposed centralization and disputed plaintiffs' characterization of the products and injuries.

The transfer order did not find that any GLP-1 medicine caused an injury or that labeling was inadequate. It decided only that coordinated pretrial proceedings would serve convenience and efficiency because discovery and legal questions overlapped. The cases were initially assigned to Judge Gene E.K. Pratter. After her death, the docket was reassigned and is now before Judge Karen S. Marston. MDL 3094 remains a collection of individual cases, not one nationwide class action.

Spring and summer 2024: the court builds the machinery

The first months focused on organization: an initial conference, leadership appointments, preservation requirements, privilege procedures and electronic-discovery rules. Those orders sound administrative, but they determine how a large proceeding can test common claims without repeating the same work thousands of times. The court's official page also states the defendants deny allegations that they knew or should have known their products can cause gastroparesis and other GI injuries or inadequately warned prescribers.

A July 14, 2024 direct-filing order allowed new complaints to be filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania solely for coordinated proceedings. It preserved defendants' ability to challenge personal jurisdiction and venue in a transferor court later. Direct filing therefore reduces paperwork; it does not establish that Pennsylvania is the proper trial forum for every case, that a claim is timely, or that the plaintiff has sufficient evidence.

Late 2024 through 2025: pleadings and cross-cutting issues

The parties developed master pleadings and procedures for plaintiff-specific information. In December 2024, the court scheduled motions to dismiss the master complaint. Later orders addressed plaintiff fact sheets, non-expert depositions, coordination and electronically stored information. A fact sheet gathers standardized details; it does not replace medical records, decide causation or guarantee that a claim survives later motions.

On October 3, 2025, Case Management Order No. 27 enabled use of a short-form complaint tied to the master pleading. The court also separated work on cross-cutting issues—questions capable of affecting groups of cases, including expert and summary-judgment questions—from facts unique to individual plaintiffs. Scheduling orders changed several times. Amendments are normal in complex litigation and should not be reported as substantive victories unless the order actually decides an issue.

2026: a clearer docket and a merits-focused schedule

On January 14, 2026, Case Management Order No. 30 created a secondary streamlined docket. It is limited to core materials such as the JPML transfer order, master pleadings, case-management orders, contested discovery rulings, dispositive-motion work and Rule 702 briefing. The main docket still exists. The new docket makes the public record easier to navigate; it does not split the litigation into a new MDL or change anyone's substantive rights.

On April 30, the court amended plaintiff fact-sheet procedures and entered Case Management Order No. 32, the fifth amended schedule for cross-cutting issues 2 and 3. The official order page identifies expert, Rule 702 and summary-judgment stages. Because those deadlines can be altered, current orders control over older calendars. The scheduled work shows a proceeding testing evidence and legal theories—not a docket that has already reached a global adjudication or universal resolution.

Do not mix the GI and vision dockets

In December 2025, JPML created separate MDL 3163 for claims alleging non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION. It is also before Judge Marston, but it has a different master number, injury theory and schedule. JPML's July 1, 2026 report lists 3,848 pending actions in GI MDL 3094 and 146 in NAION MDL 3163. Adding them and calling the sum the “gastroparesis count” would be inaccurate.

As of July 10, 2026, the defensible GI timeline ends with active fact-sheet, expert and dispositive-motion management and 3,848 pending federal actions. The cited court orders do not announce a universal settlement, payout grid or claimant deadline. Future milestones should be described from the order itself: whether it is scheduling, an evidentiary ruling, a merits decision, a remand step or a genuine agreement. Those labels keep a fast-moving docket understandable.

Reader questions

Frequently asked questions