Paraquat MDL Case Count History: Growth, Screening, and a Limited Agreement

Four report dates, four exact pairs of figures

On July 1, 2024, JPML reported 5,770 actions pending in Paraquat MDL 3004 and 6,739 historical actions. The January 2, 2025 report listed 5,825 pending and 7,183 historical. The net pending increase was only 55, but the historical total rose by 444. That difference signals that cases both entered and left active status during the interval; it does not identify the number or reason for either flow.

JPML’s April 1, 2026 report listed 6,542 pending and 8,329 historical actions. On July 1, the figures were 6,665 and 8,484. That is a three-month net increase of 123 pending and 155 historical actions. These are verified endpoints. There is no basis to manufacture values for the months between them or assume the change occurred at a steady rate.

Why the pending-historical gap grew

Historical actions are cumulative; pending actions are the active inventory on a report date. The difference grew from 969 in July 2024 to 1,819 in July 2026. That gap shows that 1,819 actions appearing in the MDL’s history were not pending on the later date. It does not say that 1,819 people settled, lost on the merits, or received money.

The Paraquat court has used screening, case-specific discovery, dismissal procedures, and management orders to address a large inventory. Actions may also leave pending status through voluntary dismissal, remand, transfer, or administrative events. To classify a particular departure, a reporter needs the action’s docket or a court order naming the affected group. A JPML spreadsheet-style report is not a disposition ledger.

The expert ruling changed the litigation, not the meaning of the count

In April 2024, the court excluded the plaintiffs’ general-causation expert in four selected cases and later entered judgments in those cases. That was a consequential evidentiary ruling, but it did not automatically terminate every action in MDL 3004. Later orders continued case-specific discovery and screening. The growing historical and pending totals confirm continuing federal activity, not the merits of any particular claim.

General causation asks whether paraquat is capable of causing the alleged injury under admissible scientific reasoning. Specific causation and other elements require evidence about an individual’s product use, exposure route and duration, diagnosis, latency, alternative risks, warnings, and governing law. A filing count cannot resolve those questions. Nor does growth validate an allegation simply because many plaintiffs assert it.

How to read the 2025 master settlement agreement

Case Management Order 24, entered April 8, 2026, states that plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel and defendants executed a Master Settlement Agreement for Certain Individual Claims and Actions Involving Paraquat Products on September 3, 2025. The emphasized limit matters: “certain” claims are not the whole docket. The public order addresses administration, qualification, eligibility information, and people who did not qualify or chose not to participate.

The order does not publish a universal award grid or allow an outsider to determine whether a claimant qualifies. It also does not let us label the difference between JPML reports as settlement enrollment. In fact, pending actions increased from the January 2025 snapshot to both 2026 snapshots. That coexistence is normal in an active MDL: settlement administration, new filings, screening, and unresolved litigation can proceed at the same time.

What the next number can—and cannot—show

The next JPML report can show whether the net active inventory rose or fell from 6,665 and whether the cumulative history moved beyond 8,484. It cannot, by itself, show how the settlement administrator classified claims, what anyone was offered, or why an action departed. Those facts require an applicable agreement, a participant communication, or case-specific court record.

A careful update should cite the report date, reproduce both columns, and separately summarize new court orders. It should also preserve the allegation-defence distinction: plaintiffs allege paraquat exposure caused Parkinson’s disease, while defendants dispute causation and liability. Nothing in the count proves that causal proposition, predicts trial outcomes, or supplies a filing deadline for someone who has not obtained individualized legal advice.

Reader questions

Frequently asked questions