California Case Summaries

In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation — Conditional Transfer Order Adds Raymond v. C. R. Bard, Inc. to MDL No. 2846

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Litigation
Court
U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
Judge
Jessica D. Birnbaum (appointment info not available)
Date Decided
2026-10-20
Docket No.
2:26-cv-03498
Status
Unreported
Topics
multidistrict litigation, conditional transfer order, hernia mesh, product liability, 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Background

On August 2, 2018, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 50 civil actions concerning polypropylene hernia mesh products manufactured by Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. in the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The Panel's original transfer order is reported at 316 F.Supp.3d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2018). Since that initial transfer, 466 additional tag-along actions have been transferred to the Southern District of Ohio. With the consent of the transferee court, all actions in MDL No. 2846 have been assigned to the Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The instant document, Conditional Transfer Order 152 (CTO-152), dated October 19, 2026, and filed October 20, 2026, addresses a single tag-along action: Raymond v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-03498, pending in the Eastern District of California. The Panel determined that this action involves questions of fact common to those previously centralized in MDL No. 2846. The order is issued pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the JPML, which governs the conditional transfer of tag-along actions.

The Court’s Holding

The Panel conditionally transferred the action Raymond v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al. from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to the Southern District of Ohio for inclusion in MDL No. 2846. The transfer is based on the reasons stated in the Panel's original transfer order of August 2, 2018, which found common factual questions. The action is assigned, with the consent of the transferee court, to Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

The order specifies that it does not become effective until filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Transmittal of the order is stayed for 7 days from entry. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will continue until further order of the Panel. The visual OCR of the filed document indicates the stay was lifted because no objection was pending at the time of filing. The order was signed by Jessica D. Birnbaum, Clerk of the Panel, on October 19, 2026.

Key Takeaways

  • CTO-152 adds one tag-along action from the Eastern District of California to the existing hernia mesh MDL No. 2846 in the Southern District of Ohio.
  • The Panel found the transferred action shares common questions of fact with the actions previously centralized before Judge Sargus.
  • The transfer is conditional for 7 days, during which any party may file a notice of opposition to halt the transfer; the visual OCR indicates no objection was pending and the stay was lifted.
  • All pretrial proceedings for the transferred action will be coordinated before Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. in the Southern District of Ohio.
  • The order reflects the ongoing management of a large-scale product liability docket involving polypropylene hernia mesh products.

Why It Matters

This conditional transfer order demonstrates the continued expansion of MDL No. 2846, which now encompasses over 500 actions related to Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc. polypropylene hernia mesh products. The Panel's use of Rule 7.1 conditional transfer orders allows for the efficient addition of newly filed, factually related cases to the centralized proceedings without requiring a full hearing for each tag-along action.

The 7-day opposition period provides a procedural safeguard for parties who may contest the transfer, though such opposition is relatively rare in established MDLs where common factual issues are well-defined. The order's indication that the stay was lifted confirms the transfer became effective upon filing in the Southern District of Ohio.

Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket

Scroll to Top